Quantcast
Channel: The Absurd Times
Viewing all 852 articles
Browse latest View live

Latuff, Gaza, more war crimes, phoney ceasefire talks

$
0
0

THE ABSURD TIMES






 

Illustration: Carlos Latuff is ahead of us this time as Al-Jazeera regains credibility



There is even more on the topic at the Democracy Now website along with a link to the live interviews.  Levy was abruptly cut off and the disconnect could only have been intentional (see the excerpt is you want to check for your self.

The attack on Al-Jazeera offices, while they were being used by AP, give a bit more credibility to that outlet.  In addition, their journalists are still being held and in prison by the Egyptian Government, "Sissy" as he should be called.

People say that journalism is not a crime, but apparently meaningful journalism is.  Already during this mess both ABC and NBC have been called to account by social media.  The idiocy about Ukraine will most likely continue.

Here are the interviews:


TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2014

"A Place of Indescribable Loss": As Ceasefire Talks Begin, Israel Bombs Hospital, Mosques and Homes

The Israeli assault on Gaza has entered its third week as the Palestinian death toll has topped 600, mostly civilians. More than 100 of the dead are children. More than 3,700 Palestinians have been injured. Israel says it has lost 27 soldiers since the ground invasion began. Earlier today, Israel confirmed the remains of one of its soldiers presumed to have been killed in Gaza had still not been found or identified. This comes two days after Hamas said it had captured the soldier. So far today, Israel has struck more than 70 sites inside Gaza, including five mosques and a football stadium. On Monday, at least 103 Palestinians died, including 11 when Israel bombed a residential tower block in Gaza City. Five children died in that attack. In the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, five people died and 70 were wounded when Israel shelled the al-Aqsa Hospital. It became the third medical facility to be struck by Israel in the past two weeks. The injured included about 30 medics. We are joined from Gaza City by Democracy Now! correspondent and independent journalist Sharif Abdel Kouddous. "Gaza is a place of indescribable loss, and a place where family sizes continue to be shrunk by falling bombs," he says.
Kouddous is reporting live from the Associated Press studio, which shares a floor with the Al Jazeera studio in Gaza City. He says that Israel fired shots into the windows of Al Jazeera’s office earlier this morning. He reports that both news agencies evacuated staff from the building. AP has since confirmed that Israel does not plan to target their office; however, Al Jazeera has not been able to confirm the same, and its staff are waiting downstairs at the bottom of the building. As of now, AP staff are back at work in the office on a voluntary basis. "This is another instance of targeting the media," Kouddous says.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARON MATÉ: The Israeli assault on Gaza has entered its third week as the Palestinian death toll has topped 600, mostly civilians. More than 100 of the dead are children. More than 3,700 Palestinians have been injured. Israel says it’s lost 27 soldiers since the ground invasion began on Thursday. Earlier today, Israel confirmed the remains of one of its soldiers presumed to have been killed in Gaza had still not been found or identified. This comes two days after Hamas said it had captured the soldier.
AMY GOODMAN: So far today, Israel has struck more than 70 sites inside Gaza, including five mosques and a football stadium. On Monday, at least 103 Palestinians died, including 11 when Israel bombed a residential tower block in Gaza City. Five children died in that attack. In the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, five people died, 70 were wounded, when Israel shelled the al-Aqsa Hospital Monday. It became the third medical facility to be struck by Israel in the past two weeks. The injured included about 30 medics. Meanwhile, gunshots were fired into Al Jazeera’s bureau in Gaza Strip today, one day after Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said his country will work to close down Al Jazeera in Israel.
As we continue our coverage of the Israeli assault on Gaza, we’re joined from Gaza City by Democracy Now!'s Sharif Abdel Kouddous, who has been writing pieces forThe Nation magazine, and we'll link to those pieces.
Can you tell us, Sharif, what has been happening in these last 24 hours?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, Amy, as you said, it’s been—the heavy bombing, the heavy bombardment of Gaza continues. Amongst the targets hit were five mosques, a sports stadium and many homes and businesses. Palestinians continue to die inside their homes in Gaza. I saw supermarkets that were still smoldering from what appeared to be a drone strike today. The owner was sifting through diapers and food and all his inventory that had been completely ruined, and his livelihood has been lost.
And as you mentioned, I’m standing to you—I’m talking to you from the AP studio, which is just across on the same floor as the Al Jazeera studio. These were two apparently 50-caliber or heavy-caliber shots that came into the window at 9:00 in the morning, or 9:30 in the morning, pierced the window and hit the wall. These are not, you know, regular bullets. These are kind of very loud bullets that make this huge booming sound. One of the Al Jazeera people that I spoke to said that they thought it was what the Israelis call a knock on the roof, a warning shot with a rocket, that it was going to be destroyed. So we had people here, both in AP and Al Jazeera, in a lot of panic and evacuating the premises. AP then confirmed with the Israeli military that they weren’t targeted, but Al Jazeera has not had that confirmation. And the Al Jazeera staff are just downstairs at the bottom of the building, sitting there. And the AP staff are back here on a voluntary basis. So this is, you know, another instance of targeting the media.
And meanwhile, as I said, people continue to die. In Rafah yesterday, there was a family, the al-Siam family; nine people of the same family were killed. I spoke yesterday about probably the single deadliest strike since the conflict began, on the Abu Jamaa family, which killed 25 people, 17 of whom were children. So, Gaza’s a place of indescribable loss and a place where family sizes continue to be shrunk by falling bombs.
AARON MATÉ: Sharif, on Monday’s show, you also talked about the massacre in Shejaiya, the neighborhood where 72 Palestinians were killed, mostly civilians, by the reports that we’ve seen. The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza has warned of an environmental disaster if Israel keeps blocking ambulances from retrieving the bodies. What do we know about the latest right now in Shejaiya?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: There were attempts for a ceasefire negotiation, a humanitarian ceasefire, that had been going on since last night. These talks appear to have fallen through. Ha’aretz reported the Israeli government is saying a ceasefire, a humanitarian ceasefire, was not on the Israeli government’s agenda at the moment.
So, as I was speaking to you yesterday, we saw that very heavy bombardment of Shejaiya that came a day after that massive artillery shelling and the bloodiest day so far of the conflict. And ambulances still cannot get in. And we had all these reports, and we have footage, of the bodies in the streets—and perhaps wounded, if they’re still alive—not being able to get out.
And on top of that, Gaza is facing a very serious humanitarian crisis. The number of internally displaced has risen to over 100,000. The U.N. is struggling to cope with the number of people. And that U.N. number is clearly low. I mean, one family today—I saw six families arrive from Beit Hanoun, a district in the north of Gaza, which was very hard-hit yesterday, arrive and live in that house, and those people are not counted by the United Nations. Water is coming to Palestinian families only three hours a day—well, it’s only three hours every three days, and people are forced to stock up on water. They only get power for between four to eight hours a day. And so, this is a serious crisis that we’re facing, a humanitarian one, as well as the number of dead and wounded.
AMY GOODMAN: Yesterday on Democracy Now!, Dr. Mads Gilbert, the Norwegian doctor, broke the news on Democracy Now! that the al-Aqsa Hospital had been attacked. Can you talk about the results of that attack? What happened to the patients inside? What happened to the doctors and the nurses, Sharif?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, I didn’t go there myself to report it firsthand yet, but there was an attack that hit a floor that housed an operating room as well as an intensive care unit. Four people were killed, and a few more were injured. But, you know, this is a place where the wounded are, and the wounded are not even safe anymore in Gaza. As you mentioned, they attacked two other medical facilities: al-Wafa Hospital, which housed severely disabled and paralyzed patients, as well as a clinic for the handicapped, where two handicapped patients were killed. So, you know, these are places where not only the wounded go, but where Palestinians go to seek refuge. The Shifa Hospital here in Gaza is a place of refuge to many. You know, they go there because they feel it is a safe place. And increasingly, those kinds of places are no longer safe. And in Gaza, there’s nowhere to run.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, Ayman Mohyeldin, who is the NBC reporter, we reportedlast week, of course, that he was pulled out of Gaza after he witnessed the killing of the four boys between nine and 11 years old who were playing soccer on the beach in front of the hotel where so many of the international reporters were staying. But then NBC announced on Friday night they would return Ayman to Gaza. Can you talk about the significance of this? And now we have seen him back on the air.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, it’s great to have Ayman back in Gaza. He’s one of the best international correspondents, especially from here. I think, you know, a lot of social media pressure and outrage over his transfer out of Gaza last week caused him to come back, and so I think that’s a good thing. It’s great that he’s here. He reported yesterday that, you know, the four al-Bakr boys that he saw killed, that their house was bombed, although that was initial reports, so we haven’t confirmed that yet.
You know, these kinds of tragedies continue. I told you about the Abu Jarad family, eight of whom were killed while they were watching TV when a tank shell came crashing through their wall. One of the cousins called me yesterday, and they had vowed not to move, and they were forced to. They are now displaced. Beit Hanoun, the area where their house is, came under very heavy tank shelling, and they joined the more than 100,000 who have been displaced.
So, you know, this is—then this crisis doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. These calls for a ceasefire, these calls for an end to the bloodshed only seem to be fueling the violence. The violence is getting steadily worse. Three hundred of the dead have been killed since the ground invasion began a few days ago. So the level of violence is really ramping up instead of de-escalating.
AARON MATÉ: Sharif, as we wrap, is there support amongst Palestinians that you speak to for Hamas’s strategy, which is basically to continue the violence until Israel agrees to lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: From the vast majority of Palestinians that I’ve spoken to, they support—they wouldn’t say they support Hamas, but they support the resistance. They support some kind of fighting back against this brutal military assault. They support, they say, the resistance until their conditions are met. And the primary, the number one condition everyone mentions is the lifting of the siege. The siege affects every aspect of life here in Gaza, from the water to power, to jobs, to food, to freedom of movement, to very basic human rights. And they feel that if the ceasefire—if this conflict ends without a return—or it returns back to the same situation that it was, with Gaza under siege, that their lives—you know, they need some change in their lives. And so, yeah, I mean, I think—I wouldn’t say Hamas, as a political movement, has the support, but as a resistance movement, that it is right now, yes, most Palestinians are unified behind it, even those who are very critical of it. Even political opponents who are members of the Fatah party say they support the resistance in this time of conflict.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Sharif, I know we may lose you by satellite at any moment in Gaza City, but when you talk about the siege, it’s not something that’s covered very much in the United States. Can you just elaborate more fully what you mean when Palestinians say "lift the siege"?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, Gaza is a thin strip of land that is bordered mostly by Israel and also by Egypt, and it has a big seacoast, and Palestinians can’t get in or out of Gaza. They’re prevented by Israel. They’re prevented by Egypt, which largely executes U.S. and Israeli policy. And foods, basic goods, the right to import and export, all of these things are banned to them, and so this has devastated the economy here. It has devastated lives. People feel trapped. They often speak of how they live in the biggest open-air prison in the world. And even the sea, fishermen cannot go out more than a couple of kilometers to go fish, where Israeli warships await them. So, you really feel it.
And you really feel this war exacerbating all those effects. And you feel—you hear drones in the air. You hear the booms of the ships. And even if you wanted to leave, you couldn’t. Even if journalists wanted to leave today, they couldn’t. Erez crossing was closed, the border with Israel, and the Egyptian border is closed, as well. So it really feels—and there’s no shelters here. There’s no air raids—sorry, there’s no air defense system. There’s no sirens. There’s really nowhere to run. You don’t know where is safe. And people are dying inside their homes and inside hospitals—not from their wounds, but from being bombed and wounded again by the Israeli military.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, I want to thank you for being with us. Please stay safe. Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent in Gaza City. You can see his reports at TheNation.com, and we will link there at democracynow.org. When we come back, we’re going to Tel Aviv to speak with the Ha’aretz columnist Gideon Levy, a member of the newspaper’s editorial board, author of The Punishment of Gaza. Stay with us.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2014

What Does Hamas Really Want? Israeli Journalist Gideon Levy on Ending the Crippling Blockade of Gaza

As the Israeli assault on Gaza enters its third week, a new push is underway for an internationally brokered ceasefire. Speaking earlier today, Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said there is "no real hope" of an immediate halt to the fighting because Hamas’ conditions are too far from those of Israel, the United States and Egypt. Hamas’ demands have centered on an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza and the release of its prisoners. The seven-year siege has crippled the economy, civilian infrastructure and water supplies. In Gaza, unemployment tops 40 percent, and almost 80 percent rely on humanitarian aid. The United Nations has warned Gaza will no longer be livable by 2020 unless urgent steps are taken. The last ceasefire in November 2012 was supposed to ease the blockade, but Israel only intensified it. With Hamas vowing to continue fighting against what it calls a "slow death," a new ceasefire largely hinges on whether the United States and others will pressure Israel to reverse its stance. We are joined from Tel Aviv by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy. In a recent piece for Ha’aretz, Levy writes: "[Hamas’] conditions are civilian; the means of achieving them are military, violent and criminal. But the (bitter) truth is that when Gaza is not firing rockets at Israel, nobody cares about it. ... Read the list of [Hamas] demands and judge honestly whether there is one unjust demand among them."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Aaron Maté.
AARON MATÉ: As the Israeli assault on Gaza enters its third week, a new push is underway for an internationally brokered ceasefire. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is set to arrive in Israel shortly. Earlier today he met with Secretary of State John Kerry and leaders of the Arab League in Cairo. Speaking Monday from Washington, President Obama continued his backing for Israel’s assault, but said the U.S. will intensify its role in the ceasefire effort.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: As I’ve said many times, Israel has a right to defend itself against rocket and tunnel attacks from Hamas. And as a result of its operations, Israel has already done significant damage to Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure in Gaza. I’ve also said, however, that we have serious concerns about the rising number of Palestinian civilian deaths and the loss of Israeli lives. And that is why it now has to be our focus and the focus of the international community to bring about a ceasefire that ends the fighting and that can stop the deaths of innocent civilians, both in Gaza and in Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking earlier today, Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said there is, quote, "no real hope" of an immediate ceasefire because Hamas’s conditions are too far from those of Israel, the U.S. and Egypt. Hamas’s demands have centered on an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza and the release of its prisoners. This is Hamas Deputy Leader Ismail Haniyeh.
ISMAIL HANIYEH: [translated] The demands of our people are clear. The aggression must be stopped, and a guarantee should be given it would not be repeated. The blockade must be lifted, this unjust blockade that our Palestinian people are living in.
AARON MATÉ: The seven-year siege has crippled Gaza’s economy, civilian infrastructure and water supplies. Unemployment tops 40 percent, and almost 80 percent rely on humanitarian aid. The U.N. has warned Gaza could no longer be livable by 2020 unless urgent steps are taken. The last ceasefire in November 2012 was supposed to ease the blockade, but Israel only intensified it. With Hamas now vowing to continue fighting against what it calls a "slow death," a new ceasefire largely hinges on whether the U.S. and others will pressure Israel to reverse its stance.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re now joined by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy in Tel Aviv. In a piece for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz headlined "What Does Hamas Really Want?" Levy writes, quote, "These conditions are civilian; the means of achieving them are military, violent and criminal. But the (bitter) truth is that when Gaza is not firing rockets at Israel, nobody cares about it. ... Read the list of [Hamas] demands and judge honestly whether there is one unjust demand among them."
Gideon Levy, welcome to Democracy Now! Why don’t you lay out the premise of this piece, what you’re trying to convey in your article in Ha’aretz?
GIDEON LEVY: Look, we tend to beat our enemies and never to listen to them. And many times, listening even to the enemy, even to the most bitter enemy, can serve a much better cause than beating and beating and beating. And unfortunately, Israel is just using the violence right now without listening to their conditions. I don’t know if their conditions are acceptable. I don’t know if those are really their conditions. But they say it very clearly: They ask for freedom for Gaza, they ask to lift the siege. Can you recall a more just require than this? But I’ll say something more than this. Doesn’t it serve the interests of Israel, seeing Gaza free and seeing Gaza building its economy and not living those unhuman conditions in the biggest cage in the world, which creates only more hatred and more violence? So, it is really at our door now to decide. Do we want to go from one cycle to the other, from one circle of bloodshed to the other, not solving anything? Or are we willing, once and for all, to put a real, just solution to the problem of Gaza?
AARON MATÉ: Well, with the massive civilian toll in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked Monday if he’s worried about losing international opinion. Netanyahu was speaking to Brian Williams of NBC News.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: You know, at a certain point, you say, "What choice have you got? What would you do? What would you do if American cities, where you’re sitting now, Brian, would be rocketed, would absorb hundreds of rockets?" You know—you know what would you say? You’d say to your leader, "A man’s got to do what a man’s got to do." And you’d say, "A country’s got to do what a country’s got to do." We have to defend ourselves. We try to do it with the minimum amount of force or with targeting military targets as best as we can, but we’ll act to defend ourselves. No country can live like this.
AARON MATÉ: That’s Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking on Monday. Gideon Levy, so he’s saying here that this current attack is about self-defense. And the blockade has been justified in terms of, "Well, we have to stop Hamas from smuggling rockets; they are, after all, a group that’s committed to our destruction." Your response to that?
GIDEON LEVY: So did you stop the smuggling with the siege? Did you really stop? We see now how well equipped Hamas is. This is ridiculous, because any siege can be broken for certain purposes. But the siege breaks the people of Gaza and pushes them again and again to the corner, to the corner of violence and to the corner of desperation.
But I would like also to comment about the prime minister’s remarks, as if Israel has to react. Sure, Israel has to react and has to defend itself, but, Mr. Prime Minister, where did it start? Those rockets fall on our heads just by chance? There is no context to this? There was not the breaking of the political negotiations by the Israelis refusing to release some few veteran prisoners? There was not a war declared on Hamas in the West Bank after the kidnap and the murder of three Israeli youngsters, arresting 500 Hamas activists who were not involved in this kidnap? Didn’t Israel stop the salaries—transferring the salaries to 40,000 Hamas workers, employees in Gaza? And what did Israel think? Wasn’t Israel against the unity government? And what did Israel think, that all this will pass like nothing and Hamas will accept everything? So I have news. Those who believe that nothing will happen were either extremely arrogant or blind or both.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain, Gideon Levy, the feeling of Israelis—you’re in Tel Aviv; we’re about to be joined by a guest in Jerusalem—of the rocket fire that’s coming from Gaza, the something like 2,000 rockets?
GIDEON LEVY: Look, I don’t want to underestimate. It is certain fear, for sure, more in the south, close to the Gaza Strip. This morning there were two sirens in Tel Aviv, and five minutes later life went back to its routine. I don’t say that people don’t carry some kind of fear, but, by and large, the life, at least in the center—I’ve been yesterday to the south; the picture is different there—by and large, life is more or less continuing, with some changes. People go out less, but it’s not the big fear of the horrible days of the Second Intifada with the exploding buses and suicide bombers. I don’t even hint to say that this can become a routine—no way, it can’t. But compared to the suffer of Gaza, this is really a children’s game right now. And thanks God also, there are almost no civilian casualties in Israel. Having said this, I don’t call for more casualties in Israel; I just say let’s try and solve it once and for all and not go again to the old games, which have proven already that they lead to nowhere.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2014

How the West Chose War in Gaza: Crisis Tied to Israeli-U.S. Effort to Isolate Hamas & Keep the Siege

While many trace the Israeli assault on Gaza to the series of events that began with the kidnapping and subsequent murder of three teenage Israelis in the occupied West Bank, we look at how the crisis’ immediate cause has been all but ignored. In a recent article for The New York Times, "How the West Chose War in Gaza," Nathan Thrall, senior analyst at International Crisis Group, argues the roots of the current violence lie in Israeli, U.S. and European efforts to undermine the Palestinian unity government, which Hamas joined earlier this year. Isolated by its opposition to the Assad regime in Syria and a rift with the military government in Egypt, Hamas reconciled with the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in the hopes a unity deal could help ease the crippling blockade of Gaza and help pay the salaries of thousands of its civil servants. But the United States and European Union helped Israel maintain the blockade of Gaza while denying payments to the Hamas employees. "Plan A for Hamas out of the predicament it and Gaza found themselves in was reconciliation," Thrall says. "That was thwarted — so Plan B is the crisis we’re dealing with today."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARON MATÉ: I want to bring in Nathan Thrall, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, covering Gaza, Israel, Jordan and the West Bank. His recent article forThe New York Times is headlined "How the West Chose War in Gaza." Nathan Thrall, we just heard Gideon Levy talking about the context here of Israel undermining the Palestinian unity government. Your piece deals with how this was carried about with EU and U.S. backing. Can you lay out for us what happened here, why this context is so critical to the current crisis in Gaza?
NATHAN THRALL: Sure. I would step back a little bit further to the last fight between Hamas and Israel, which occurred in November 2012. That was brought to a close after several days with a ceasefire brokered by Egypt. At that time, Hamas had an ally, Egypt, in power. And basically, that ceasefire, the terms of that ceasefire included various concessions to Gaza and to Hamas. And although Israel implemented some of them in the immediate days and weeks afterward, very shortly later those were retracted, and we once again went back to a situation where exports were all but nonexistent, imports were reduced, and there were severe restrictions on travel for Gazans. Nevertheless, that ceasefire basically held, and during 2012 and ’13—I’m sorry, during 2013, following the ceasefire, Israel had one of the quietest years, if not the quietest year, it had had since rockets started coming from Gaza, which, by the way, began before the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in the fall of 2005.
Fast-forward to July 2013, when there is a coup in Egypt, and there is a new leader who’s very hostile both to the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is the Palestinian chapter, and hostile to Hamas, as well, of course. And there was a radical change in policy on the part of Egypt and a radical change in the closure regime that was imposed on Gaza. Very, very few Gazans were able to exit through the Rafah crossing to Egypt. This is the main exit of Gazans to the outside world. There are some Gazans who are permitted to leave via Israel, but it’s really not available to most Gazans. It’s for exceptional medical cases and high-level VIP businessmen and so forth. So, the exit was closed, and pressure started to build.
In addition, the tunnels, through which many goods were coming, particularly construction materials and fuel—were coming into Gaza through these tunnels crossing the Gaza-Egypt border. And the Sisi regime, following the July 2013 coup, basically eliminated these tunnels. And with that elimination of those tunnels, almost complete elimination, Hamas no longer had these goods coming through and could no longer tax them. They relied on those tax revenues in order to pay the roughly 40,000 employees who run Gaza and have been running Gaza even without pay for the last several months.
So, what you had was a pressure cooker inside of Gaza, and this began to build and build to the point where, December 2013, we had a massive storm here and sanitation plants started to shut down for lack of power. There was radical reductions in electricity, which are already at very, very low levels within Gaza. Sewage is being dumped in the sea. There’s sewage in the middle of the streets in Gaza. And Hamas is looking at the situation in Egypt, and they’re hoping that there’s going to be a change in regime there and they will at least if not have a Muslim Brotherhood president again, somebody who’s less hostile to them and is going to allow some kind of easing of the closure of Gaza.
And as they came to the conclusion earlier this year that that really was not going to happen in the near term, they realized that they had to do something to get out of their predicament—and in particular, the predicament of not being able to pay the employees who are running Gaza. These employees, by the way, are not simply Hamas members. Many of them are Hamas members, but many of them are members of other factions, as well. And as soon as they came to this conclusion, they decided that what they would do as a way out of this was to form a reconciliation agreement with the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah. And this was a years-long process of debating the various points of implementing Palestinian reconciliation. It’s a very distant dream. But Hamas basically caved on all of the demands that they had previously been making.
And I don’t want to overstate the nature of this reconciliation. This was not a reconciliation of the political programs of Fatah and Hamas. It wasn’t calling for disarming Hamas in Gaza. It wasn’t addressing the massive problems dealing with the security forces and so forth. But it was a step towards Palestinian unity, and an important one. And what it allowed for was to have a single authority, with the ministries controlled by Ramallah controlling Gaza once again.
And what happened after this agreement, Hamas expected two things at a minimum for basically caving on all of their demands. The first thing they expected was an easing in the closure imposed particularly by Egypt on the Rafah crossing. The official reason for that closure being in place was that Egypt had this campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood and against Hamas, and security threats in Sinai and so forth. And they said, "Look, if we’re no longer manning the border and now you have PA security forces loyal to the leadership in Ramallah at the border," as Hamas agreed would be the case, "then there should at least be some significant easing, and people should be able to exit Gaza." The second thing that they expected was that the civil servants, whom they could no longer pay, would begin to be paid. And neither of those things happened.
In fact, life in Gaza just became worse. And months went by without any solution to this building crisis, of Hamas having made these concessions in order to find a solution out of the predicament in Gaza—and also, you know, for their own self-interested reasons, as well. They didn’t want to be overthrown by the population in Gaza at a time of great turmoil and instability in the region when they couldn’t provide for their people. So they handed the responsibility for that over to the government in Ramallah. Presumably, that would be something that’s in the interest of the West, which always states how much they want to strengthen the leadership in Ramallah and strengthen Fatah. And if indeed that was what they desired, then the day that this government was formed, there should have been increases in electricity in Gaza, the Rafah crossing should have been opened significantly. Major changes should have taken place. The salaries should have been paid on the day that government was formed. And nothing of the sort took place. And nothing—if it had taken place, nothing would greater strengthen the leadership in Ramallah and Fatah.
And so, what happened subsequently were the kidnappings and murders of the three Yeshiva students, the three Israeli students at Yeshiva in the West Bank, followed by the revenge, torture and killing of the 16-year-old Palestinian boy in East Jerusalem, Mohammed Abu Khdeir. And Hamas found itself in a campaign in the West Bank, an Israeli campaign, to arrest hundreds of Hamas members in a search for the perpetrators of the kidnapping and murder. Hamas did not claim responsibility for the kidnappings and the murder, but it did say that it supports such kidnappings as a means of getting prisoners out of jail. And it essentially found an opportunity—with rising protests particularly in the wake of the killing of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, rising protests particularly in Jerusalem and in Israel proper, it saw an opportunity to do what it felt it was going to be forced to do in any event. Plan A for Hamas out of the predicament it and Gaza found themselves in was reconciliation. That was thwarted. And so Plan B is the crisis that we’re dealing with today.
AARON MATÉ: Nathan Thrall, and, of course, right before this, you also had a pretty major development with the U.S. agreeing to recognize this unity government, with Hamas included. Now, in early June, as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas swore in the government, joining Hamas and Fatah after years of conflict, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said the Obama administration would recognize this new government.
JEN PSAKI: At this point, it appears that President Abbas has formed an interim technocratic government that does not include ministers affiliated with Hamas. Moving forward, we will be judging this government by its actions. Based on what we know now, we intend to work with this government, but we’ll be watching closely to make ensure that it upholds the principles that President Abbas reiterated today.
AARON MATÉ: Nathan Thrall, can you talk about how Israel reacted to this decision, and then what the U.S. then subsequently did in terms of its commitment to recognizing the unity government?
NATHAN THRALL: Sure. The step that the U.S. took was opposed by Israel. And it has to be said that the reason the U.S.—one of the main reasons that the U.S. actually took this extraordinary step of recognizing this unity government was, first of all, their frustration with Israel during the Kerry-led peace process. If that had not happened and that Kerry-led peace process had received an extension, the U.S. almost certainly would have opposed much more strongly the reconciliation agreement than it did.
But the second reason, of course, that the U.S. recognized the government was that it basically was a form of capitulation by Hamas. There was not a single Hamas member within this government, not a Hamas-affiliated minister within the government. The government looked basically identical to the U.S.-backed government in Ramallah that it was replacing. And so, there was not even really a legal reason for the U.S. to oppose the new government.
But behind the scenes, the U.S. did act to ensure that true reconciliation did not take place, that further steps toward reconciliation did not take place. The U.S. very strongly told President Abbas that, for example, the Palestinian Legislative Council could not convene. Why? Because the Palestinian Legislative Council, because of the 2006 elections in the West Bank and Gaza, which Hamas won in both places, has a majority, a strong majority, of Hamas parliamentarians. And if that Legislative Council were to convene—and Hamas saw that as a critical part of this reconciliation agreement: If they were giving up the power that they had won through elections to a group of people who had not been elected, then at the very least they expected to have some kind of legislative check on this government. And the U.S. told Abbas very clearly that there would be a cut in American funding and there could be no support for this unity government, if the Legislative Council were to convene. And there were numerous other steps towards reconciliation that could not take place because of European and U.S. opposition.
And it should be said also that the Palestinian Authority itself was very reluctant to implement the agreement and was dragging its feet considerably. You can say, partly, they were doing it because of these threats from the U.S. and Europe, but there was certainly a lot of foot dragging on their part, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Nathan Thrall is speaking to us from Jerusalem, senior analyst of the International Crisis Group.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->

Some Truth on Gaza

$
0
0

THE ABSURD TIMES




 


Illustration: One child dies every minute in Gaza due to Israeli attacks.  By Latuff
 
Note: There is so much information skewed and hidden in our media that our commentary will come in the next issue that takes up Ukraine.  The distortion and obfuscation on Gaza is so overwhelming there is only enough room to reproduce some of the truths here. 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014

MSNBC’s Sole Palestinian Voice Rula Jebreal Takes on Pro-Israeli Gov’t Bias at Network & in US Media

A week after public outrage helped force NBC’s reversal of a decision to pull veteran reporter Ayman Mohyeldin out of Gaza, the sole Palestinian contributor to sister network MSNBC has publicly criticized its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. "We are disgustingly biased when it comes to this issue," Rula Jebreal said Monday on MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow Daily, citing a disproportionate amount of Palestinian voices and a preponderance of Israeli government officials and supporters. Jebreal joins us to discuss her decision to speak out against MSNBC and her broader criticism of the corporate media’s Israel-Palestine coverage. An author and political analyst who worked for many years as a broadcast journalist in Italy, Jebreal also shares her personal story as a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship who is married to a Jewish man and has a Jewish sister.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to the controversies around media coverage of the crisis here in the U.S. Over the weekend, NBC reversed its decision to remove veteran correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin from Gaza. Mohyeldin was removed shortly after he reported on witnessing Israel’s killing of four boys on a Gaza beach. His reports gave voice to Palestinian victims and placed the siege in the wider context of Israeli occupation, drawing criticism from supporters of Israel’s offensive. NBC’s decision to remove one of its top reporters sparked a massive backlash on social media, with the hashtag #LetAymanReport becoming a trending topic on Twitter. Days later, NBC backed down, and Ayman Mohyeldin resumed his reporting on Sunday. In a Twitter post, Mohyeldin acknowledged the social media campaign that demanded his return, saying, quote, "Thanks for all the support. Proud of NBC’s continued commitment to cover the #Palestinian side of the story."
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, one of MSNBC’s frequent contributors, Rula Jebreal, took to the network’s airwaves to criticize the initial decision to remove Ayman and the broader exclusion of Palestinian voices. Jebreal was speaking on MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow Daily.
RULA JEBREAL: We’re ridiculous. We are disgustingly biased when it comes to this issue. Look at how many airtime Netanyahu and his folks have on air on a daily basis, Andrea Mitchell and others. I never see one Palestinian being interviewed on these same issues, not even for—
RONAN FARROW: Well, I’ll push back on that a little. We have had Palestinian voices on our show.
RULA JEBREAL: Maybe for 30 seconds, and then you have 25 minutes for Bibi Netanyahu and half an hour for Naftali Bennett and many others. Listen, the Ayman Mohyeldin story, let’s talk about this. We are home, and we can discuss this. Ayman Mohyeldin is covering the Palestinian side, and we get upset. It’s too pro-Palestinian. We don’t like it. We push him back. And thanks for social media, that brought him in. Let’s talk about these issues, and came home.
RONAN FARROW: Point taken, but doesn’t it reveal equally our thinking that we now have Ayman Mohyeldin on air? And I think there’s been very fair and balanced coverage of this.
RULA JEBREAL: Just thanks to social media and thanks for the pushback from the public opinion. And I’m not saying that everybody is like this, but it’s one-tenth is given to the Palestinian voice and 99 percent of the Israeli voice, and that’s why the public opinion is pro-Israeli, which is the opposite in the rest of the world.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Shortly after the interview, Jebreal tweeted, quote, "My forthcoming TV appearances have been cancelled! Is there a link between my expose and the cancellation?" On Tuesday night, she appeared on MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Rula Jebreal to talk about what happened. Rula Jebreal is an author and political analyst who frequently appears on MSNBC. She worked for many years as a broadcast journalist in Italy, where she also covered the Middle East. She is the author of Miral, which was made into a film by Julian Schnabel.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
RULA JEBREAL: Thank you for having me.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Can you talk about what happened and the decision you made to speak out on your own network?
RULA JEBREAL: Well, I decided to speak on my own network because we are liberal Democrats, and part of the debate of any media in the liberal Democratic landscape is to discuss our own flaws as well as others, not only Bridgegate, but also Mediagate, I would say, a media scandal regarding the biased covering of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And I looked at studies, and the studies that were made by many scholars, respected American scholars—Juan Cole and others—who are referring to the covering of the media, how much airtime is given to the Israeli officials and how much airtime is given to the Palestinian officials. And it’s a U.S. landscape that is so biased. So, for example, in 2012 you had, on CNN alone, 45 Israeli officials interviewed versus 11 Palestinians. And when it comes to this conflict today in 2014, you have 17 Israeli politicians, official interviewed versus one Palestinian. So we are going backwards regarding this issue. And that forms and shape the public opinion in America, that then transfer and become political support, unconditional, to Israel, to a policy that is very destructive both to the Israelis and to American stands in the world and their credibility.
AMY GOODMAN: Were you the only Palestinian consultant or contributor onMSNBC?
RULA JEBREAL: Absolutely, yes.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So what happened after, after your appearance on Ronan Farrow where you said what you said, criticizing their coverage?
RULA JEBREAL: I just received emails of cancellation. And I asked question about whether these cancellation are related to what I said earlier. I never had any—tried to call the producers, and nobody answered the phone. Then I tweeted what I tweeted, and immediately there was a social media uproar. I understood—listen, I worked in Egypt. I was kicked out of the country because I interviewed Omar Suleiman, the head of secret Service. I asked him about torturing. I interviewed Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. I’m accustomed with this. When I pushed Silvio Berlusconi on corruption and scandals, my TV show was shut down. I’m accustomed to this. I did not, with all honesty, expect this from us, liberal media, and us who are advocating, telling—going out, saying, "We tell the truth, and we cover this in an unbiased way," I did not expect that.
AMY GOODMAN: The AlterNet writer Max Blumenthal spoke to an anonymousNBC producer who, he said, described, quote, "a top-down intimidation campaign aimed at presenting an Israeli-centric view of the attack on the Gaza Strip," unquote. In his piece for AlterNet, Blumenthal wrote, quote, "The NBC producer told me thatMSNBC President Phil Griffin and NBC executives are micromanaging coverage of the crisis, closely monitoring contributors’ social media accounts and engaging in a [quote] 'witch hunt' against anyone who strays from the official line," Blumenthal wrote. The producer told Blumenthal, quote, "Loyalties are now being openly questioned." Did you have any experience of that, Rula? How long were you a contributor at MSNBC?
RULA JEBREAL: I have to say, I’ve been there for two years, and—I’ve been there for two years. And I have to say, I was talking about the American landscape, not only MSNBC, which has been actually a little bit better than others. But I never experienced anything like this. I mean, I understood doing what I did in Egypt would lead me to be kicked out of the country. I understood in Italy, where Berlusconi controlled most of the media. I was shocked, because most of my friends in the Middle East would tell me, "You know, you will have an issue in America." And I always thought, "No way. We are truth tellers. We are fact checkers. We are people that actually cover both sides. This is what America stands for." And I hope thatMSNBC and other networks will actually revise their policies and will have more voices. It doesn’t have to be me. It’s not about me. We have a media scandal that we need to expose. We are responsible of these failing policies in Gaza and in Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: Had you tried to raise this before in the two years that you were a contributor?
RULA JEBREAL: Oh, privately, I raised it with so many, many, many, many people in the inside. I’ve been pitching myself to talk about these issues on many shows, and I’ve been privately meeting with producers and others. And I told them. I said, "Listen, you have an issue there. Our credibility here at stake. We can’t talk about Bridgegate for six months, and then, when it comes to this, we decide we duck our heads, and we decide to be exactly like the other networks. We can be different. We can be much more bolder, and we can be aggressive. And then maybe the rates are this way because of this." I think most of them were agreeing privately with me, but then, when it comes to what goes on air, I don’t think they did have any power.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, you did go on Chris Hayes last night.
RULA JEBREAL: Absolutely. Chris Hayes contacted me late in the afternoon, and so his producers—
AMY GOODMAN: And he’s on MSNBC.
RULA JEBREAL: And he’s on MSNBC. Of course, we disagreed, but, you know, in the media, we can agree to disagree. We have Joe Scarborough criticizing over and over, and he’s fine, and he’s OK. But one thing is to criticize certain things, but is this a hot issue that nobody can touch? Is this what America’s becoming about?
AMY GOODMAN: So did you lose your job as a contributor?
RULA JEBREAL: I have no idea. I still don’t know. My contract is up, and we’re negotiating still.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And following your appearance on the show, you said one of the things that you hoped your comments would precipitate would be a national debate on the question of Israel-Palestine and how it’s covered. What kind of shape do you think that debate would take? And if it were up to you, what kinds of issues should be raised more frequently in the mainstream media on this particular issue?
RULA JEBREAL: I think what we need to ask: Are we really guaranteeing—by supporting unconditionally this Israeli government, right-wing government, are we really helping Israel being more secure in the long term, and ultimately, American interest and stand in the world? Is that what’s happening? And look, this policy with Gaza has been failing for the last eight years. We had six bombardments in the last eight years, and this did not topple Hamas and did not limit, weaken Hamas. Actually, it empowered more and more Hamas. And moderates like myself—and, for me, Hamas is the ultimate liability for the Palestinian people—but this did not empower moderates. Moderates have been telling Israel over and over, "We want a peace deal. We will agree on most conditions that you want." And as Gideon Levy said in this venue, in this same venue, the problem with our policy, that we want to keep the status quo. That means military occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Gaza under siege.
And we want—and what we are doing in the media, we are portraying actually a false image where what’s happening in Israel—and if you ask anybody, whether in New York, in D.C., in other places, "What do you think is happening?" they will tell you, "Well, Israel was minding its own business. The Palestinians started shooting missiles out of the blue." This is not the reality. This is not what’s going on. And the context of this is what’s leading the public opinion to support unconditionally Israel. And politicians will do what’s popular, not what’s right. We need to do what’s right. We, in the media, have a mission. Whether it’s MSNBC, Democracy Now!, CNN, we have a mission. We are truth tellers, and we can shape public opinion to protect public interest.
AMY GOODMAN: Rula, you have a fascinating story yourself, which you wrote about in your book Miral, which was made into a film. Can you talk about where you were born and your own life story?
RULA JEBREAL: Look, I was born in Haifa. I am an Arab Israeli. I’m a holder for an Israeli citizen—I have. My family lived all their lives in East Jerusalem. I was raised in an orphanage. My family is both Muslims and Christians. I am married to a Jewish man. And I really believe in two-state solutions. A year ago, I discovered that I have a Jewish sister, because my mother, that died when I was five years old, actually had a relationship, and I discovered a year ago that she had—I have a Jewish sister, that is tweeting today, in these days, killing Arabs is a value. This is the reality that I live in.
And I have to be truth—because of what I’ve seen in the Middle East, and because of what I witness, whether it’s in refugee camps, under military occupation, under siege, I’ve seen how pain, grief, and when you keep 60 percent of the population that go almost hungry to bed, and 90 percent without clean water, the only thing that can rise is extremism. And the solution to this is not to bombard them altogether in one place. The solution to this is actually lifting the siege, empowering them financially and let them, themself, you know, create a moderate leadership that eventually can take over. We didn’t manage to topple Hamas, and this is fact. We are failing in our strategy in how to contain extremists. Hamas was dead politically. We will manage, with this war, actually, to revive Hamas and its power and its grip on the Palestinian coast.
AMY GOODMAN: How did you end up going from Haifa, growing up in an orphanage, to becoming a broadcaster in Italy?
RULA JEBREAL: Simply when I was 17-and-a-half, I won a scholarship from the Italian government. I went to Italy. I studied there. I attended college. I became the first anchorwoman on the Italian television—first foreign anchorwoman, black anchorwoman, on the Italian television. I was attacked by the right, especially during the Iraqi War, because I challenged their views on the Iraqi War. When I visited Iraq, it was clear to me that there was no way that a military solution will be met with cheering. And it was clear to me that the country would be divided immediately and the Shiites will take over. So I wrote about this. I was challenged by the right-wing government in Italy on these views. I was even called the N-word on air by one of the ministers of Silvio Berlusconi, who actually was pushed to resign three days after because of the uproar of the media, because of that. Then I worked for so many years in Italy. I was a reporter. I read the news. And then I decided to go to my own world. I went to Egypt. I worked there for three months. I was on-air journalist. I broadcast a TV show—until I started asking the wrong question and tough question to the establishment. After that, I was off air, kicked out of the country. And I hope to find a platform somewhere.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And you’ve worked—you just talked about your work in Italy. How would you say the reporting in Europe on Israel-Palestine compares to what you’ve seen since you’ve come to the U.S.?
RULA JEBREAL: Oh, day and night, day and night, day and night—and simply because of the images that reporters bring from the ground and are allowed to show on air. Here, you know, we have a problem with what we show. The tipping point for me is when people like Rihanna and Selena Gomez are not even—celebrities—allowed to sympathize with the people that are dying—not with Hamas. When they wrote their Twitter and saying, you know, "We pray for peace in Gaza, and we sympathize with the victims," and everybody backlashed on them. And even John Kerry was scared when his microphone was open on Fox, and then he had to actually walk back that line. That shows you something: Everybody is scared when it comes to these issues. It’s time that we in the media have the courage. We expose so many wrongdoing from our own government here and their wrongdoing abroad. It’s time to—it’s time, really, to do a service, not a disservice, to our audience and to our interests in the world—and also to the Israeli, many Israeli people that—and Jewish people, as you showed in your network—that are today calling on Israel to stop their policies.
AMY GOODMAN: Rula, we want to thank you for being with us. Rula Jebreal, author, political analyst, frequently appears on MSNBC. She worked for many years as a broadcast journalist in Italy, where she also covered the Middle East, is the author of Miral, which was also made into a film. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, a debate on the U.S. media coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict. Stay with us.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014

A Debate on Gaza: Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada vs. J.J. Goldberg of The Jewish Daily Forward

We host a debate on U.S. media’s coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict and the roots of the crisis with two guests: Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the website Electronic Intifada and author of the new book, "The Battle for Justice in Palestine"; and J.J. Goldberg, editor-at-large and columnist at the newspaper, The Jewish Daily Forward. Abunimah and Goldberg discuss news headlines that ignore the massive Palestinian toll, whether the ceasefire should address the Gaza blockade, and the history of the conflict.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to a debate on the U.S. media’s coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict. Two days after Israel launched its offensive on the Gaza Strip,The New York Times drew widespread attention on social media when it ran a story with the headline, quote, "Missile at Beachside Gaza Cafe Finds Patrons Poised for World Cup." One of our next guests, Ali Abunimah, tweeted in response to the Times, quote, "Israeli missile stops by Gaza cafe for a drink and dialogue with its Palestinian friends." The Times later changed their headine to, quote, "Israeli Missile Kills 8 Palestinians at a Beachside Gaza Cafe."
AMY GOODMAN: To discuss this headline and much more, Ali Abunimah joins us from Chicago. He’s the co-founder of the website The Electronic Intifada and author of the new book, The Battle for Justice in Palestine. And here in our New York studio, we’re joined by J.J. Goldberg. He’s the editor-at-large and columnist at the newspaper The Jewish Daily Forward.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Ali, let’s start with that headline, the original headline in The New York Times that we just read, "Missile at Beachside Gaza Cafe Finds Patrons Poised for World Cup." Can you take it from there? Explain what happened in that situation?
ALI ABUNIMAH: Well, it’s very simple. The New York Times headlines makes it sound like the Israeli missile stopped by the cafe for a friendly chat. But what the missile actually did was blew to pieces a number of people who had gone to the beach to try to escape from the horror of Israel’s pogrom in the rest of Gaza and to watch a World Cup match, like billions of people around the world, and they died there. That’s what happened. But that’s not what you would get from the New York Times headline.
And I think that the media are failing to convey the enormity of what’s happening to people in Gaza. This morning, I heard from my friend Refaat Alareer. He’s the editor of the wonderful book of short stories by Gaza writers called Gaza Writes Back. He’s outside Gaza now, studying, separated from his family, which is even worse than being in Gaza, for people whose families are there. This morning, he lost his best friend in Israel’s pogrom in Shejaiya, his best friend Usama, who happens to also be his wife’s brother. And his family, his wife’s family have lost eight people in the last five days. This catastrophe, this mass destruction in Gaza, the randomness of the slaughter and the killing is not being conveyed. We have to hide from it in this country because if we reveal the full truth about the horrifying pogrom that Israel is carrying out, a lot of people won’t be able to handle it.
AMY GOODMAN: J.J. Goldberg, can you first respond to that headline, which theTimes then changed to reflect that eight people had been killed, but—and then talk about the larger coverage as you see it?
J.J. GOLDBERG: Well, in general, I find headlines in newspapers to be awful. Having started as a headline writer, you’re trying to be cute and get people to read the article. And the headline writer probably assumed that when they said "missile," the readers would understand that it was going to kill somebody. But you don’t act cute when you’re talking about people dying. So, Ali was right to call attention to it.
I haven’t heard any mention of the fact that Israel is being bombarded. Now, Israelis are not dying because Israel has a good missile defense system. Gaza does not. I don’t think Israel is going to apologize for having a good missile defense system. Israel made it clear: When the rockets stop coming from Gaza, we will stop bombing Gaza. And Israel accepted an Egyptian ceasefire. Hamas, as you briefly mentioned, did not, and does not. So if it’s really so awful that your people are being killed, accept the ceasefire, and then talk about the conditions of the ceasefire, the things you want to come up.
Ali said that there’s—you’re not allowed to mention the deaths. I’ve been watching a lot of television, reading in a lot of newspapers. The deaths, the suffering of the people in Gaza is pretty much all that’s covered here in the last few weeks, partly because of the way news works in America: If it bleeds, it leads. We’ve been inured by local news to bang-bang and shoot-shoot. So, the fact that people are dying in Gaza, which is awful—it’s awful—but that’s the whole story here, how many people are dying. And then there’s some—the fact that there’s a politics behind it, that there is a war going on in which one side wants to destroy the other side and the other side doesn’t want to be destroyed, that’s hardly covered at all.
ALI ABUNIMAH: Can I—
AMY GOODMAN: Ali Abunimah?
ALI ABUNIMAH: Yeah, I mean, J.J. has offered us all of the propagandistic talking points that don’t stand up to scrutiny, and that’s one of the points of the media coverage. The only side that is being destroyed now is Palestine. We’re witnessing the destruction of Palestine—in Gaza, in the West Bank, in the Naqab, in the Negev, where Bedouins are being ethnically cleansed. The destruction of Palestine has been going on for almost 70 years. And J.J. Goldberg has the chutzpah to say that people in Gaza—
J.J. GOLDBERG: The word’s "chutzpah."
ALI ABUNIMAH: —who are fighting for their survival and their existence, are trying to destroy Israel. This is the kind of Orwellian propaganda that is coming from the Israeli government and its apologists in the media here.
Let’s talk about the false claims that J.J. Goldberg made about the ceasefire and Hamas. You know, you can only make those claims, J.J., if you ignore the fact that after the November 2012 ceasefire not one rocket came out of Gaza for three months. Who did violate the ceasefire, J.J.? It was Israel. It bombed Gaza dozens of times. It killed and injured dozens of people. It fired on farmers and fishermen. EvenThe New York Times had to admit Israel’s frequent ceasefire violations. J.J., the answer, if you want to stop rockets, is time-tested and easy: Israel can stop attacking and killing people in Gaza; it can lift the siege.
Also, let’s talk about—you know, it’s not just having Palestinians bleed on television that’s the point of coverage. Where are the Palestinian voices? Yesterday, The Electronic Intifada published a statement by 91 civil society leaders in Gaza, people from the Red Crescent, from the universities, from the media, Supreme Court judges—91 members of civil society—and they said, "We do not want a ceasefire without justice, because going back to the status quo is a living death." The choice we’re being given is between being blown to bits or dying slowly without the world listening.
You know, when there’s a ceasefire, J.J. Goldberg isn’t agitating in The Nation — excuse me, in The Forward, for an end to the siege. What we have is this liberal Zionist navel gazing about how to preserve Israel as a so-called Jewish and democratic state. Enough Palestinian babies have been blown to pieces for this insanity. Enough of lecturing Palestinians that their resistance is illegitimate or futile.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, J.J. Goldberg, let’s—
ALI ABUNIMAH: Palestine is being destroyed, J.J.
J.J. GOLDBERG: Let’s let him go. He’s having a good time.
ALI ABUNIMAH: We’re witnessing the destruction of Palestine, and you have the chutzpah to claim that Israel is in danger.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about this point that Ali raises of the siege, that what Mahmoud Abbas has also said it supports Hamas in is not accepting a ceasefire until the siege is lifted, as well?
J.J. GOLDBERG: Right. Mahmoud Abbas came around to that after finding, during his meetings in Qatar, which were apparently very tense, that he wasn’t going to get Khaled Meshaal to accept the Egyptian version of the ceasefire, which is first stop the killing and then talk. And since—
ALI ABUNIMAH: Why can’t Israel stop the killing now, J.J.? Why does Israel have to slaughter 60 or 70 people a day? Why don’t you tell Israel to cease the bombing and the killing now? Why are you telling Palestinians to stop—
J.J. GOLDBERG: You don’t know what I write. You obviously haven’t read a thing that—
ALI ABUNIMAH: —defending themselves?
J.J. GOLDBERG: Should I stay here or leave?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, J.J. Goldberg, why don’t you explain—
ALI ABUNIMAH: Palestinians have a right to self-defense, J.J.
J.J. GOLDBERG: Should I stay here?
AMY GOODMAN: You should stay here and explain what is it that you write, what is it that you say in The Forward.
J.J. GOLDBERG: I have been writing for years that Israel is doing a great disservice to itself and to the Palestinians by resisting a two—
ALI ABUNIMAH: It’s a pogrom, not a disservice. Use the correct words, J.J.
J.J. GOLDBERG: Well—
ALI ABUNIMAH: It’s a pogrom.
AMY GOODMAN: Ali, let J.J. speak.
J.J. GOLDBERG: It’s not a pogrom, and it’s not "chutzpah." And the word is "chutzpah."
AMY GOODMAN: Keep going. You—
ALI ABUNIMAH: And it’s "Hamas," not "Hamas."
AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead, J.J. Explain this issue of the siege. Has The Forward, have you supported a lifting of the siege?
J.J. GOLDBERG: Yes, yes. The siege is extremely counterproductive. It’s cruel, and it’s not working in bringing down the Hamas government.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain what the siege is.
J.J. GOLDBERG: The siege is a closure of the—it’s essentially a collective punishment of the people in Gaza because they are ruled by Hamas, and Hamas is dedicated to the unmaking of the Israeli state. As Rula said before, Hamas is not working for coexistence between Israel and Palestine. Hamas came into power in Gaza by murdering leaders of Fatah, taking over in a coup d’état and turning Gaza into an armed state in order to attack Israel. That’s what’s been going on. Israel responded with an extremely counterproductive collective punishment.
Now, it’s been mentioned that Gaza doesn’t have—Israel bombed its only electrical power plant, which supplied 30 percent of its electricity. The other 70 percent was supplied by Israel. The Israeli power supply to Gaza was shut down by Hamas rockets a week ago, and the Israeli electrical workers are afraid to go out and fix the cables because of Hamas rockets. I don’t know where else to go here.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: J.J. Goldberg, could I ask you also to respond to the point that Ali Abunimah raised about who violated the ceasefire? In one of your recent pieces, you wrote that "[t]he last seven years have been the most tranquil in Israel’s history." That is, prior to what happened on July 8th. "Terror attacks are a fraction of the level during the nightmare intifada years—just six deaths in all of 2013."
J.J. GOLDBERG: Right, I wrote that.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So could you address specifically, yeah, the ceasefire, who violated it?
J.J. GOLDBERG: The ceasefire, who—well, first of all, it’s important to know that Hamas did observe the ceasefire from November 2012, after the Pillar of Defense, I think they called it, until this outbreak. There were rockets being fired by other groups operating out of Gaza. Hamas was trying to enforce the ceasefire. It did a decent job of it, but it wasn’t perfect. And when there were rockets, Israel went and bombed the rocket squads. And sometimes when Israel bombs the rocket squads, it hits civilians.
ALI ABUNIMAH: Hospitals, mosques, schools, children, everything. It hits everything.
AMY GOODMAN: Ali Abunimah, this issue of having a ceasefire and then negotiating the end of the siege?
ALI ABUNIMAH: Well, I mean, if J.J. Goldberg says that the siege is cruel and it’s collective punishment—all of which is true: It’s a violation of international humanitarian law; it’s in fact a war crime to deprive people under occupation of their basic needs—then why not tell Israel, lift the siege and then talk? Why is the onus always on the occupied, the dispossessed, the refugees, to prove their good behavior to the ghetto masters?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s just put that point—
ALI ABUNIMAH: It seems to me that—
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s just put that point to J.J. Goldberg.
J.J. GOLDBERG: No, he’s not done. Keep going. You’re having a good time.
AMY GOODMAN: No, no. No, no, no. J.J., why don’t you respond—
ALI ABUNIMAH: J.J. just—I haven’t finished my point.
J.J. GOLDBERG: No, he’s—
AMY GOODMAN: Ali, you can make a second point after, but let’s just address that one point.
J.J. GOLDBERG: Well, first of all, he is right that depriving the occupied people of their basic needs is a war crime. They haven’t been deprived of their basic needs. They’ve been kept poor. But they haven’t been starved.
ALI ABUNIMAH: Have you been to Gaza, J.J.?
J.J. GOLDBERG: No, I would be shot if I went to Gaza.
ALI ABUNIMAH: That’s untrue. There are many international people in Gaza now who are not being shot. They’re actually bearing witness, and they’re under the bombing with Palestinians. So stop inciting against Palestinians by these false claims that, you know, Palestinians are such wild monsters that if they see a Jew, they shoot them automatically. This is libel. This is libelous, J.J., and it’s a libel that contributes to the bloodshed because it further dehumanizes Palestinians.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me go to another headline, as we talk about media criticism. This was The Washington Post headline on Sunday’s front page. It was in large letters. It said, "2 Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza clash." And then the sub-headline says in smaller text, "Death toll tops 330 as Hamas militants step up attacks." So, again, the large headline says two Israeli soldiers die, and then the smaller headline, it says 330 people die as Hamas sets up attacks, indicating perhaps it was Hamas who had killed them, let alone even if you thought it was 330 Palestinians, you—it was in the sub-headline. The next day, The Baltimore Sun ran this headline with a story by a McClatchy reporter: "Sharp rise in Gaza deaths: 13 Israeli soldiers, 70 others killed; Kerry to seek end to fighting.""13 Israeli soldiers, 70 others killed," your thoughts on that, J.J. Goldberg?
J.J. GOLDBERG: I would have to see the Post headlines from day to day. If all of their headlines were about Israeli soldiers being killed, then I would say that’s outrageous. But if—what I’ve seen is a lot of coverage, and headline writers need to break up the monotony. Now, there’s a certain monotony to massacre, when it happens day after day.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: J.J. Goldberg, I want to turn to another point that you made in your most recent piece, which is that the momentum turned against Israel only on Sunday following what happened in Shejaiya, that international support for Israel diminished. Could you say a little about how you think that was reflected in media coverage, what the media coverage was like before, when there was more support for Israel’s military assault on Gaza, and what happened after Sunday, in the media coverage?
J.J. GOLDBERG: The media coverage has been fairly straight. It’s been reporting from Gaza on what’s going on.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Before and after.
J.J. GOLDBERG: Before and after. And when there’s a lot more people killed, it looks a lot worse. It is a lot worse. And so, the demonstrations and the rallies against Israel in Europe and America have increased. You begin to see European leaders beginning to distance themselves. I think I wrote the wind shifted, and I’ve written in a couple of tweets and so on that Israel jumped the shark. It went—it went overboard. It went a step beyond what it had been doing. The ground campaign essentially was a declaration of war on the Palestinian people.
AMY GOODMAN: Ali Abunimah, J.J. Goldberg said there’s a monotony to massacre.
ALI ABUNIMAH: I’m still trying to get my head around that phrase, frankly, Amy, just the callousness of it, the inability to absorb the enormity of the catastrophe. Someone calculated that if Gaza were the United States, in terms of population, we’re talking about, you know, 80-90,000 dead in the space of a few days. There isn’t a single family in Gaza that hasn’t lost people. We’re talking about entire families wiped out. At the beginning, J.J. Goldberg was whining that there isn’t enough coverage of Israel being bombarded, as if there’s any comparison whatsoever, not just to what Israel is doing to Gaza now, but to what Israel has been doing to Gaza for eight years, what Israel has been doing to Gaza since 1967, what Palestinians have been going through for decades—being forced off their land, being killed. I mean, we’re not paying attention even to the West Bank. All eyes are on Gaza, but people are being killed in the West Bank. Land is being taken in the West Bank. The destruction of Palestine continues, so that people like J.J. can sit in New York and pontificate about how American Jews in North America need a spare country so that they can feel safe.
AMY GOODMAN: J.J. Goldberg, you have the last 15 seconds.
ALI ABUNIMAH: The destruction of Palestine has to end.
AMY GOODMAN: Ali, let J.J. Goldberg—last 15 seconds.
J.J. GOLDBERG: I hardly know what to say. The—
ALI ABUNIMAH: Call it a disservice, J.J., why don’t you?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to have to leave it there.
J.J. GOLDBERG: We’re going to have to leave it there.
AMY GOODMAN: J.J. Goldberg, editor-at-large of The Jewish Forward, The Jewish Daily Forward. His most recent article, "As Gaza Toll Rises, So Will Pressure on Israel." And Ali Abunimah, the co-founder of the website The Electronic Intifada, author of the new book, The Battle for Justice in Palestine.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014

"Growing Humanitarian Crisis": Palestinian Toll Tops 650 as Israel Attacks Gaza’s Sole Power Plant

Israel continues to bombard the Gaza Strip amidst talks over a ceasefire. Israeli military attacks today include the bombing of Gaza’s sole power plant and the heavy shelling of Khan Younis, killing six people and leaving at least 20 wounded. The Palestinian death toll is near 650, including more than 160 children. Some 4,000 have been wounded. According to Gaza officials, 475 houses have been totally destroyed, and more than 2,600 homes have been partially damaged. Israel has also struck 46 schools, 56 mosques and seven hospitals. Two more Israeli soldiers have been killed, bringing the Israeli military death toll inside Gaza to 29. A farm worker from Thailand also died inside Israel after being hit by rocket fire from Gaza. On the diplomatic front, Secretary of State John Kerry is in Israel today for talks with Israel and then the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has endorsed a Hamas call to condition a ceasefire on ending the seven-year blockade of the Gaza Strip. Speaking today at the U.N. Human Rights Council, Navi Pillay, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said there is a "strong possibility" Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza. Pillay cited Israel’s deadly attack on residential homes in the Shejaiya neighborhood and the shelling of the al-Aqsa Hospital. On Tuesday, U.S. and European airlines halted flights to Tel Aviv after a rocket strike landed about a mile from the airport. We go to Gaza City to speak with Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Secretary of State John Kerry has arrived in Tel Aviv for talks with Israeli and Palestinian Authority leaders over a possible ceasefire as the death toll continues to rise in Gaza. About 650 Palestinians have now died in the 16-day Israeli offensive. The death toll includes over 160 children. A seven-year-old died this morning when an Israeli shell hit a cart pulled by a donkey. According to Gaza officials, 475 houses have been totally destroyed, and over 2,600 homes have been partially damaged. Israel has also struck 46 schools, 56 mosques and seven hospitals.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, two more Israeli soldiers have been killed, bringing the Israeli death toll inside Gaza to 29. A farm worker from Thailand also died inside Israel after being hit by rocket fire from Gaza. On Tuesday, U.S. and European airlines halted flights to Tel Aviv after a rocket strike landed about a mile from the airport.
On the diplomatic front, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has backed calls by Hamas for an end to the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip as a condition for a ceasefire.
We go now directly to Gaza City, where we’re joined by Democracy Now!correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous.
Sharif, tell us where you have just come from.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Amy, I was just at the Gaza power plant, which was hit last night by the Israeli military at least three times with artillery shells. This is Gaza’s only power plant. It provides about 30 percent of the electricity to the Gaza Strip. And it was severely damaged last night, and it’s not working right now, and they’re looking to repair it. This comes as already Gaza is suffering a very severe electricity problem with the vast majority of Gaza’s residents only receiving about four hours a day of electricity. So this is adding to the growing humanitarian crisis that Gaza is facing.
The Israeli military has declared 44 percent of the Gaza Strip as a military zone and warning people in those areas, so essentially pushing in from the border three kilometers. And this is a piece of territory that is, at its widest, nine kilometers wide and, at its narrowest, five kilometers. So, nearly half of the Gaza Strip now has been declared a military buffer zone, and this has caused massive displacement. We’re seeing over 100,000 people being displaced, not just in U.N. schools, but in unfinished buildings, in other people’s homes, in churches. A church, the other day, where some residents—some evacuees were, the graveyard was bombed by the Israeli military. This caused a woman inside to go into labor, and she gave birth inside the church. The Shifa Hospital has become a makeshift refugee camp. There’s many, many residents from Shejaiya, the neighborhood in eastern Gaza City that was razed by the Israeli military on Sunday in one of the bloodiest days of the conflict. I spoke to many people there. They’ve come essentially with nothing. And one of them actually showed me a text message that she received that night from an unknown number—it wasn’t even a number; it was letters—where it received from, and it was a text message in Arabic that said, "You’ve never seen anything like this." And it was presumably a warning to residents from the Israeli military to Shejaiya residents.
And, you know, when we talk about these numbers of children dying and of the number of Palestinians dead and wounded, it’s much easier to understand them by telling their stories. And today in Shifa Hospital, I was just standing there, and a father, a 30-year-old father, came with his 60-year-old mother up to me asking for help. They said that his wife had just given birth to co-joined twins. They’re joined at the stomach. They share a heart and a liver. And they desperately needed to get out of Gaza to go to Israel or any other country to do surgery to split them and to separate them, and that one of the children would be sacrificed for the other. He told me this story, and he said, "Let’s go see the children. I want to show them to you." And we walked into the neonatal ward, met the doctor, and the doctor looked at me and said to me in English, so the man wouldn’t understand, that we’re too late, that they had just died. And then he had to inform the father, who broke down in tears. So these are the kinds of stories that you hear. He’s been trying to get the children out, his newborn twins out, for the past few days, but everything’s been closed. And, you know, this is the kind of drama that you see every day under this brutal military assault.
And also, just on another note, this morning the Israeli military hacked into or took over Hamas’s radio station, Al-Aqsa. And so, while we were driving, we heard these warnings, that were a little bizarre, of the Israeli military saying, "Oh, terrorists, you hear the sound of the plane overhead? You are the target." And then, "Oh, terrorists, best place to feel safe for you is in your grave." And this is part of the psychological warfare that is going on, as well.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Sharif, very quickly, before we conclude, could you say what you think the prospects are for a ceasefire being reached, given what Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said, backing Hamas—the Hamas position on lifting the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip as a condition?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, I think it’s a very important development. Many Palestinians here were very pleased at the news. And it unites a single Palestinian front in its demands. And, you know, this is, I think, a key thing. Again, like I said yesterday, whenever you talk about what Gazans are asking for, they’re asking for a lifting of this siege, a lifting of this brutal blockade that affects every single aspect of life. When you talk about water, you talk about electricity, you talk about jobs, you talk about the right to work and the right to travel, all of those things existed before the war. The war has exacerbated these effects very severely. So, you know, this is something that all Gazans are calling for, and I think Abbas’s joining with Hamas is an important development in that.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, we want to thank you for being with us. Sharif Abdel Kouddous, stay safe, broadcasting from Gaza City, Democracy Now! correspondent. His pieces are appearing in The Nation magazine. We will link to it at democracynow.org.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014

Not In Our Name: Jewish Activists Arrested in Sit-in at Friends of Israel Defense Forces NYC Office

Protests in response to Israel’s assault on Gaza have drawn hundreds — and in some cases thousands — around the world. On Tuesday, members of Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No! occupied the New York City office of the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, a nonprofit group that raises money in the United States to send to the Israeli military. For about an hour, activists read the names of the more than 600 Palestinians killed and demanded the organization stop its fundraising for the military attacking Gaza. Nine were arrested when they refused to leave the premises. We get a video report from the protest.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Protests in response to Israel’s assault on Gaza have drawn hundreds—and in some cases thousands—around the world. Here in New York City on Tuesday, members of Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No! occupied the office of the Friends of the IDF. The nonprofit group raises money in the United States to send to the Israeli military.
AMY GOODMAN: For about an hour, activists read the names of the more than 600 Palestinians killed and demanded the group stop fundraising for the Israeli military. Nine people were arrested when they refused to leave the premises. Others protested outside the office. Democracy Now! was there and brings you some of their voices.
PROTESTER: Find out why Jews are protesting Israel’s war on Gaza. Take a leaflet.
REBECCA VILKOMERSON: My name’s Rebecca Vilkomerson. I’m the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace. And we’re here today in Golda Meir Plaza at the office of the Friends of the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, and we’re planning to do an action, the groups Jews Say No! and Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewish activists who are protesting against the war on Gaza, against this incredibly terrible assault on civilians, and protesting the fact that this organization right here is actually raising money for the Israeli Defense Forces, helping them, supporting the assault that they’re making on Gazan women, children and families. So we feel like it’s really important, especially as Jews, to make the statement that this is not in our name and that the Jewish community is not behind this assault in the United States and that they need to stop doing this immediately.
PROTESTERS: No more money for Israel’s crimes! Not another nickel, not another dime!
DOROTHY ZELLNER: My name is Dorothy Zellner. I’m a former civil rights worker. I worked with SNCC for five years in the black liberation movement in the United States. Most of us have been to Israel and the West Bank and Gaza, if not once, many times, and we have seen for ourselves what the conditions are there. And it is totally unbearable to know that this country dares to even say they represent us and they speak for us. There is a sit-in going on right now up in the offices of the Friends of the IDF.
FRIEND OF THE IDF 1: No, no, no. Wait, wait.
FRIEND OF THE IDF 2: Sorry, no one can come in.
PROTESTER: We’re a group of American Jews. We’re here—
FRIEND OF THE IDF 2: I can’t have you stay here. You’re not here with an appointment. I ask that you wait outside.
PROTESTER: We are here peacefully.
FRIEND OF THE IDF 2: I know you are.
ALANA KRIVO-KAUFMAN: We are here to demand, as American Jews, that Friends of the IDF stop funding Israel’s massacre of Palestinians living in Gaza. Over the past two weeks, 621 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed. We are here nonviolently to do a civil disobedience. We mourn all who are lost, and we are reading the names of those who the Friends of the IDF have helped funded the IDF to kill.
BRANDON DAVIS: Thursday, July 10th, the following people were killed: Asmaa Mahmoud al-Hajj, age 22.
PROTESTERS: Asmaa Mahmoud al-Hajj, age 22.
BRANDON DAVIS: Was killed in a bombing in Khan Younis that killed eight members of the same family and wounded 16 other people. Mahmoud Lutfi al-Hajj, age 58.
PROTESTERS: Mahmoud Lutfi al-Hajj, age 58.
BRANDON DAVIS: Khader al-Bashiliki, age 45.
FRIEND OF THE IDF 2: We’re calling the police right now. Excuse me. Excuse me. The police are on their way. You have to wait outside.
FRIEND OF THE IDF 1: This is private property.
PROTESTER: We are here—we are here nonviolently.
FRIEND OF THE IDF 2: No, no cameras!
MAIA ETTINGER: My name is Maia Ettinger. I was raised by two Holocaust survivors: my mother and my grandmother. And in their name, I’m here today to oppose the dehumanization of Palestinians, to oppose collective punishment. These were the things that they suffered and that they taught me to fight on behalf of everyone, not just on behalf of Jews.
BRANDON DAVIS: Suha Hamad, age 25.
PROTESTERS: Suha Hamad, age 25.
PROTESTER: On Wednesday, July 9th, these many Gazans were killed. Abdel Hadi Jumaa al-Sufi, age 24.
PROTESTERS: Abdel Hadi Jumaa al-Sufi, age 24.
PROTESTER: He was killed in a bombing near the Rafah crossing.
POLICE OFFICER: Hey, you’re going to wind up—if you dont leave, you’re going to wind up getting charged with criminal trespass. So, I would advise you, if you don’t want to get arrested, to leave now.
REBECCA VILKOMERSON: We’re here doing civil disobedience peacefully.
POLICE OFFICER: OK, good. Do whatever you want to do.
PROTESTERS: Hatem Abu Salem, age 28.
PRISCILLA READ: Priscilla Read. I’m here appalled by the crimes against humanity being committed by Israel that profess to the world that it’s capable of hitting targets in a very precise way. If this is precision bombing, the world has never seen anything like it. We are repeating the names of the people who’ve been killed in Gaza. The proportion of very young children is appalling.
BRANDON DAVIS: Nagham Mahmoud al-Zouaydi, age two.
PROTESTERS: Nagham Mahmoud al-Zouaydi, age two.
BRANDON DAVIS: Was killed in Beit Lahia. Basem Mohammed Mahmoud Madhi, age 22.
PROTESTERS: Basem Mohammed Mahmoud Madhi, age 22.
REBECCA VILKOMERSON: Looks like they’re preparing to arrest us. They have a bullhorn. When the police come in, we’re going to tell them that we’re here peacefully doing civil disobedience and that we’re here peacefully. We’re mourning all lives that are lost, but we’re holding the Friends of the IDF accountable for helping to support theIDF to kill all these people in Gaza—whose names we’ve been reciting for almost an hour, and we’re still not through the list—and tell them that we’re here peacefully. We will not resist arrest, but that we’re not leaving.
INSPECTOR ED WINSKI: Good afternoon, folks. I’m Inspector Winski from the NYPD You are trespassing on private property. I’m going to give you an opportunity to leave. And if you choose to leave, you can leave now; if not, you’re going to be arrested. So anyone that wants to leave can leave now.
PROTESTERS: [singing] We are a peaceful Jewish people. We are singing for Gazan lives.
AMY GOODMAN: Nine members of the Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No! organizations were arrested Tuesday occupying the offices of the Friends of the IDFin New York. Special thanks to Democracy Now! producers Hany Massoud and Sam Alcoff and to our fellows, Anna Özbek and Daniel Begun, for that report. This isDemocracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->

Zionist Warcrimes v. Gaza

$
0
0

THE ABSURD TIMES



 
Illustration: You all remember Latuff?

Zionist war crimes continue as politician B.S. in Cairo.


            There has not been time to address the media blackout of reality in Gaza, much less to address the lies about Ukraine.  Perhaps tomorrow, but Putin is quite capable of taking care of himself.  When Saudi Arabia bought weapons from him, they demanded that he abandon support for Assad.  He replied that with a push of a button he could eliminate Saudi Arabia and the topic was abandoned.

            We have seen the Zionists, Israel, attack the UN refuges in Gaza.  All this time, we are assured that Israel uses "precision" strikes.  To any one, "precision", eg. "exact" means that the target you hit is the one you are aiming for.  This concept seems too abstract for American media to grasp.  If our media will nt cover Ukraine correctly, why would we expect accuracy given the AIPAC or Zionist lobby's pressure?  We can't.

            The UN target in Gaza: a couple dozen were killed and over 200 injured in the "precision" strike.  The exact GPS coordinates were given to the IDF by the UN before the slaughter.  All else is mere double-talk. 

            The talks in Cairo now are for show.  No people would accept the presence of foreign troops within their borders.  Additionally, they want to keep blowing up tunnels during the "ceasefire".  The tunnels were the only avenue for materials to rebuild Gaza after a previous conflict.  

            Also blacked out are the Israeli citizens renouncing their citizenship in protest and the large groups of thousands of Jews in New York and elsewhere demonstration with shouts of "Not in our name."  Have you seen any of that on the news?  I thought not.

            At the last moment, it was announced that Israel has rejected the Cease-Fire.  The Kerry announced that they hadn't, they simply rejected the language.  Kerry actually looks a bit peeved.

            Again, here is more of the truth.  Perhaps tomorrow we will address Ukraine:

FRIDAY, JULY 25, 2014

Sharif Abdel Kouddous: In Gaza, Unrelenting Israeli Assault Causes "Grave Humanitarian Crisis"

Amidst talk of a potential ceasefire, the Palestinian death toll has passed 815 in Israel’s relentless bombings of the Gaza Strip. On Thursday, at least 16 civilians died and more than 200 were wounded when a United Nations shelter was bombed in the Gazan area of Beit Hanoun. Palestinian officials have blamed Israeli tank shelling, while Israel has suggested militant rockets were at fault. Reporting from Gaza City, Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous describes visiting the morgue where bodies are being taken, as well as a children’s hospital in northern Gaza that was severely damaged Thursday in a nearby air strike. "If the ceasefire falls apart, then we can only imagine that an escalation of the ground offensive — that’s what Israel has declared — will be in the cards," Kouddous says. "We are looking at a very grave humanitarian crisis."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: The Palestinian death toll from Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip has passed 815 as new attacks kill more civilians and spark the largest West Bank protests in decades. On Thursday, at least 16 civilians died and over 200 were wounded when a United Nations shelter was bombed in the Gazan area of Beit Hanoun. Palestinian officials have blamed Israeli tank shelling, while Israel has suggested militant rockets were at fault. The U.N. has declined to directly accuse Israel but suggested Israeli shelling is responsible. Two Palestinians were killed Thursday night near the Qalandia checkpoint in the West Bank, and more than 200 were wounded when Israeli soldiers fired live ammunition at thousands of protesters who marched from Ramallah toward Jerusalem. More protests are happening in the West Bank today.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry remains in Egypt, where ceasefire talks are underway. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reports Kerry has drafted a new ceasefire proposal and is waiting to hear back from Hamas via the Qatari and Turkish governments. Hamas has demanded the lifting of the seven-year blockade of Gaza as a condition for a ceasefire.
For more, we go directly to Gaza City, where we’re joined by Democracy Now!’s Sharif Abdel Kouddous.
Sharif, can you talk about what’s happened since we last spoke 24 hours ago?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, Amy, right after I spoke to you, news broke of that shelling of the U.N. school in Beit Hanoun, which is in the north of Gaza. And we rushed to the hospital in Beit Lahia, the biggest hospital in the north, where the dead and wounded were being brought. Really heart-wrenching scenes, many women and children being brought in on stretchers, wounded. I met one man, a 21-year-old by the name of Hussein Shinbari, who had lost his mother, his three siblings, all under the age of 18, and his father’s second wife.
And multiple witnesses said that they had sought shelter in this U.N. school and that they thought they were safe there and that they were told to gather around 1:30 or 2:00 p.m. in the schoolyard to be taken to another school because there was some clashes in the area and shelling in the area. And at some point, multiple explosions hit the schoolyard. The Israeli military has alleged that it—initially alleged that it may have been an errant Hamas rocket, but the fact that there were multiple explosions in the same area belie that claim. And the Israeli military later acknowledged last night that it did fire into the area in response to hostile fire.
In the morgue of the hospital, I saw at least one baby—she must have been no more than one or one-and-a-half years old—who was killed.
And so, this was somewhere where, you know, some of the poorest people from Beit Hanoun had gone. They don’t have money to go anywhere else. They don’t have relatives to stay with. And this was a place of refuge that they had sought, and they came under this attack. And as you mentioned, 16 were killed and over 200 injured.
Also, late last night—well, not late, during around sunset time, there was a very large airstrike on a house in the Tuffah neighborhood of northern Gaza, of northern Gaza City. And the force of the blast severely damaged a children’s hospital, the Muhammad al-Durrah Children’s Hospital, that was just tens of yards away. I visited this morning. The ICU unit was completely destroyed inside, all the windows blown out. The window frames were toppled over cribs. One child, the director of the hospital told me, was two-and-a-half years old and was being intubated at the time of the attack. And the doctor was blown back by the force of the blast. Glass flew all over the baby, and the baby was killed.
So, this is continuing as we speak. There’s still the sound of drones in the air. There’s heavy shelling across the border area with Israel. And as these negotiations for a ceasefire continue, the bloodshed is also continuing.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, the issue of this ceasefire, can you talk about what you’re hearing so far? Secretary of State Kerry is in Cairo right now. What people are saying in Gaza City?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, the Israeli Security Cabinet is scheduled to convene at 3:00 p.m., which is right now, to discuss the proposal for the ceasefire. One of the main elements of this ceasefire is—well, it’s a proposal to halt hostilities for a week, under which negotiations will continue. One of the conditions of it is that Israeli troops remain in Gaza and continue to search and destroy tunnels. This is Israel’s main objective, its declared objective, in this war. And so, this is causing a lot of rejection by many of the Palestinians that I’ve spoken to here. To them, it sounds like they just want Hamas to lay down its arms while Israel continues its military campaign. So we’ll have to see. There’s been indications from Khaled Meshaal, Hamas leader, that he’s open to some kind of humanitarian truce. But they have held out for their main condition for a ceasefire, which is that the seven-year siege of Gaza is lifted.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us more stories of the people that you have met, and particularly what the hospital is like?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, Amy, any hospital you go to in Gaza, you will see many children wounded. You will see many innocent civilians who have been caught up in this bloodshed. It’s almost difficult not to see dead people in Gaza over the last few days. And really, the number of children that you see wounded, the number of children that I’ve seen killed has been really astonishing.
And yesterday also, there was a much fiercer campaign and attack in, as I mentioned yesterday, in Khan Younis, in Khuzaa, where Israeli troops moved in. And this is near the border in southern Israel. And people described a nightmarish ordeal of 24 hours trying to get out; of moving from house to house seeking shelter and each house being shelled; of Israeli troops knocking on doors and taunting the men to come outside; of arresting men from their homes; of people trying to escape tank fire, walking with—holding white flags in the air, with their hands in the air like prisoners of war. And these are clearly civilians—women and children and men. Men took off their T-shirts and put their hands in the air to walk out.
And there’s many dead and wounded being left behind. I was just at the Shifa Hospital right now, and they are still bringing bodies in from the Shejaiya neighborhood, which was attacked by the Israeli military with a lot of indiscriminate tank shell fire on Sunday. And these bodies are decomposing, and they’re still being brought in. So we’re looking at a very grave humanitarian crisis.
AMY GOODMAN: The power—the issue of power and the power plant bombed?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right, Gaza’s only power plant was struck by three shells a couple of days ago, that provides about 30 percent of electricity to the Gaza Strip. Gazans now get about four hours of power a day. And power also severely affects water supply, for the pumps to pump water to the 1.8 [million] Palestinians. About 1.2 [million] Palestinians have no clean access to water in Gaza. I spoke to the head of the water utility here, who said that on average right now Palestinians get three hours of water every three days. So, you can imagine what that’s like for many people. When they do get water, they have to fill up bottles and jerrycans. And many people haven’t showered for days. It affects sanitation issues. And these are very basic human rights. And the very heavy displacement that has happened, over 150,000 people being displaced, has only exacerbated these problems.
AMY GOODMAN: And the effect of the mass protest in the West Bank, the largest protest that has been seen there in years, on the people of Gaza? Did word get through?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Word did get through, and people here have expressed joy at the act of solidarity that was shown in the West Bank, that people are rising up and supporting their cause. And we’ll have to wait and see where this takes us. Will this ceasefire come into effect? And if it does, it’s only scheduled to be into effect on Sunday. And if we look at the past military campaigns on Gaza by Israel, it usually ramps up its violence as a ceasefire approaches. So I think, in many scenarios, we’re going to see a ramping up of violence going into Sunday. If the ceasefire falls apart, then we can only imagine that an escalation of the ground offensive—that’s what Israel has declared—will be on the cards.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif Abdel Kouddous, thank you for joining us—stay safe—reporting to us from Gaza City. When we come back, we go to the spokesperson for the United Nations organization that runs the school that was just shelled, killing 16 people, wounding hundreds. Stay with us.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
FRIDAY, JULY 25, 2014

"No Safe Place": After Deadly Attack on Gaza School, U.N. Warns 150,000 Seeking Shelter are at Risk

At least 16 people were killed and more than 200 injured Thursday when a school used as a United Nations shelter came under fire in Gaza. Palestinian families displaced by the assault had reportedly gathered to move to a safer area when the school was hit. Palestinian officials have blamed Israeli tank shelling, while Israel has suggested militant rockets were at fault. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has declined to directly accuse Israel, but says it gave the school’s coordinates to the Israeli army numerous times. "Within Gaza, there is no safe place," says Christopher Gunness, UNRWA spokesperson. "If the parties to this conflict have shown themselves callous enough to be able to hit a clearly designated, clearly marked U.N. compound where hundreds of people have come to take sanctuary, we cannot guarantee anymore the safety of our installations." Gunness says the number of people now seeking shelter amidst the violence has swelled to 150,000.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: On Thursday, at least 16 people were killed, more than 200 injured, when a U.N.-run school used as a shelter came under fire in Gaza. Palestinian families were in the school in Beit Hanoun fleeing Israel’s offensive against Hamas militants. The director of UNRWA operations in Gaza, Robert Turner, said the coordinates of the school had been given to the Israeli army numerous times.
ROBERT TURNER: This school was a designated emergency shelter, which meant that we had given the Israeli authorities, the IDF, the coordinates of this school on 12 separate occasions, most recently 10:56 this morning. They were fully aware that this was a shelter. We knew that the situation in Beit Hanoun was deteriorating from a security standpoint. So over the course of the day, we had been trying to coordinate a window, a period during which we could withdraw our staff, and any displaced people who choose to go to a safer location would be able to leave. We were never conferred that window, that time period.
AMY GOODMAN: That was the director of UNRWA operations in Gaza, Robert Turner. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon strongly condemned the shelling of the school in Gaza Thursday.
SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN KI-MOON: I was shocked and appalled by what has happened in the Beit Hanoun UNRWA school. It’s totally unacceptable. I have condemned it strongly. We are now at the 16th day, and tomorrow will be 17th day. During those days, Secretary Kerry and I and many world leaders have been working tirelessly to bring this unacceptable, intolerable situation to an end as soon as possible. We have not yet reached there.
AMY GOODMAN: That was U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. To talk more about this attack, we’re joined by Christopher Gunness, the spokesperson for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, for Palestine Refugees.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: Thank you very much.
AMY GOODMAN: Describe what you understand happened.
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: Well, we made the—we gave the GPS coordinates, the precise GPS coordinates of a U.N.-designated school—it had a blue U.N. flag on the top of it—to the Israeli army over a period of hours. We appealed to them, we begged them, we pleaded with them to allow a humanitarian pause, a window of opportunity, so that women, children, men, civilians, the sick, the elderly, babies, the dying could be let out of the conflict zone. We appealed desperately. We explained the situation at the school. But no answer came back that was positive. In the end, we could not do that civilian evacuation, and the consequences of that were absolutely tragic. The carnage, the pitiless carnage that you saw on your screens yesterday, was the result.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what it is—who was in there? How many refugees had taken shelter in this school?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: Well, let me break some news here. The number of people sheltering with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza has now gone over 150,000. That’s fast approaching 10 percent of the population in Gaza. These are desperate, traumatized people who had fled from their homes in response to the dramatically escalating Israeli ground offensive. They are in areas in schools where buildings were meant to accommodate a thousand students or so a day coming in in the morning, leaving in the afternoon. They’re now overrun with people who are staying there 24/7, some for the 17th day.
There’s a desperate need for sanitation, for water. Don’t forget that because of the blockade of Gaza, 95 percent of the water is undrinkable. So, in these designated shelters, you turn on the water, turn on the taps, and salt water comes out. So we have to truck in every single liter of water to 150,000 people. That’s just the water. There’s food, as well, that we need to bring in, mattresses, sanitation equipment—all sorts of things that people staying in these shelters—frankly, in a war zone—desperately need.
And now it seems that there is nowhere safe in Gaza. We’ve been hit, and it seems that every single one of our over 80 shelters, all 150,000 of those individual lives taking shelter with us, are today at risk.
AMY GOODMAN: And the Israeli military saying that perhaps this was a Hamas rocket that hit the UNRWA shelter?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: Well, Qassam rockets are notoriously inaccurate. So the idea that within a few minutes a group of Qassam rockets could hit roughly the same area seems beyond miraculous. But if that’s what the Israeli army and military spokesman and others, like Mr. Regev, were saying, that’s fine. But, you know, it’s perhaps useful to ask them why it is that weapons, when they fly into Israel, it’s said that they’re completely inaccurate; apparently they can all land in roughly the same space within a matter of minutes yesterday in Beit Hanoun. I think that needs some kind of unpacking.
AMY GOODMAN: And why people come to this school, the Palestinians? Who were these Palestinians who came to the school in Beit Hanoun?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: These are ordinary residents of the areas around Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza. That area had been particularly affected by the Israeli ground incursion, so—offensive. So these are people who had been traumatically and dramatically affected. They had left their homes. Many of these are refugees already, dispossessed, stateless people. And they fled their homes, many of them under fire, grabbing their children, grabbing whatever possessions they could take as they ran. These are deeply scarred people. There are scars you can see and scars you can’t see. And I fear that the scars you can’t see are considerably deeper than the scars you can. And, you know, let us be mindful of the appalling scars we saw yesterday.
AMY GOODMAN: On Tuesday, UNRWA issued a press release saying rockets had been discovered for the second time in one of its schools. According to the press release, the vacant school is situated between two other UNRWA schools that currently each accommodate something like 1,500 refugees, internally displaced persons. The release also said that because staff were immediately evacuated, the number of rockets could not be confirmed. Can you clarify, Christopher Gunness?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: Absolutely. What happened was we discovered that there was a cache of rockets. Now these are notoriously unstable devices, so we immediately evacuated the school, and we put a guard on the gate. What happened—and we began consultations, by the way, to find international experts that would be capable of making these weapons safe. What happened was, overnight, a group of refugees attempted to flee and break into the school. So we, of course, had to go back into the school. And at that point, we discovered that the weapons had gone missing. We notified all the relevant parties. We notified, in particular, the office of the secretary-general. There has now been a major review. The secretary-general has ordered that U.N. Security and the United Nations Mines Action Service are involved. So there’s now a root-and-branch review of exactly what happened. There are international experts on the way.
And, of course, the hope is that we don’t have a situation where militant groups are able to go into mutual U.N. compounds and hide these weapons. We came out very strongly in condemning them. We have been very clear that this is a flagrant violation of the neutrality of U.N. premises. And we’ve called on those groups or groups or militants—we’ve demanded that this should never happen again. It is imperative that the parties, that all warring parties to this conflict, respect the sanctity of civilian life, the inviolability of United Nations property and compounds, and that there is respect under and according to international humanitarian law for the protection of international workers, because if that is not respected, look at the appalling, pitiless consequences that we saw yesterday—that callous attack, that callous shelling, should I say. We’re not saying who did it, but we want an investigation. We need to find out irrefutably who was responsible.
AMY GOODMAN: To be clear, that U.N. school yesterday that was attacked, where 16 people were killed, hundreds wounded, was not the one you’re talking about where there were rockets inside.
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: No, Amy, absolutely right. The places where the weapons caches have been found were schools which had been closed down for the summer. These schools were regularly inspected by UNRWA, and it was in the course of these regular inspections that the weapons were discovered. These were not places where refugees had taken shelter. And to be clear, there is absolutely no evidence that there were rockets in the school that was hit yesterday or indeed that there were militants in the school firing rockets. And indeed, throughout the last conflict, Cast Lead, in 2008, 2009, or should I say the one before last, although Israeli spokespeople made accusations that there were militants in UNRWAcompounds, not a jot of evidence was ever produced to substantiate these false and very damaging allegations against the United Nations.
AMY GOODMAN: Other schools during this conflict, other U.N. schools that are serving as shelters for hundreds, for thousands of people, have they been hit?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: They have. In the last week, there have been three direct hits by incoming Israeli air fire onto two of our installations, our schools, where in one case about a thousand displaced people were taking shelter. Five people were injured. In another place, 300 people were taking shelter, and one small girl was injured. And by the way, Amy, when we went back to investigate that, we cleared a two-hour window in which a clearly marked U.N. vehicle could go back. We cleared that with the Israeli army. When we were there, there was further incoming fire, and one of my colleagues nearly lost his life. This highlights the need for the parties to abide by their obligations under international law.
AMY GOODMAN: What are you hearing of a ceasefire? And what do you think needs to happen, Christopher Gunness?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: We are a humanitarian organization, and we don’t have a seat at that ceasefire talks. What we do is deal with and we mitigate the effects of the failure of the politicians and the peacemakers. We pray that there will not be failure. We are hearing what you are hearing, that Eid will bring with it perhaps some kind of cessation of hostilities. I have no special information on that. But I can tell you that the 150,000 people taking shelter in our schools, all of them potentially victims of what we saw in Beit Hanoun yesterday, are trembling, are fearful, are traumatized and are desperately hoping that that ceasefire will indeed hold.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you tell Palestinian refugees who are leaving their homes, who are told, instructed by the Israeli military, with calls, with pamphlets that are dropped—where do you tell them to go, if they’re bombed when they go to the designated shelters?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: It’s up to individuals to make their own autonomous choices. It sounds irresponsible, but frankly, we can’t say. For a start, Gaza has a fence around it. It’s unique in the annals of contemporary warfare in being a conflict which has a fence around it, so there is nowhere to run. But even within Gaza, there is no safe place. If the parties to this conflict have shown themselves callous enough to be able to hit a clearly designated, clearly marked U.N. compound, where hundreds of people have come to take safe sanctuary, we cannot guarantee anymore the safety, the safe sanctuary of our installations. It is utterly appalling that in a war zone today, with so many United Nations-assisted beneficiaries, so many U.N.-designated safe shelters, that this sort of thing is happening. It is appalling. It is condemnable. And it has to stop. Enough civilians, enough women, enough children, enough young men who are not involved in the conflict, the elderly, the sick, the dying—they have suffered enough. Enough is enough.
AMY GOODMAN: And your response to the Israeli military saying they’re engaged in precision bombings; Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: Well, if precision bombing has led to a situation where the majority of those killed are civilians, one has to ask just how precise those precision bombings are.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you for being with us, Christopher Gunness, spokesperson for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, known as UNRWA. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org,The War and Peace Report. An UNRWA facility, a shelter, has been hit in the last 24 hours, 16 Palestinians killed, hundreds wounded.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
FRIDAY, JULY 25, 2014

Turning Point? Largest West Bank Protest in Decades Raises Spectre of a 3rd Intifada

Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip has triggered the largest West Bank protest in years, with more than 15,000 people marching Thursday from Ramallah toward Jerusalem. Two Palestinians were killed and more than 200 were wounded when Israeli soldiers fired live ammunition. We go to the West Bank to speak with journalist Amira Hass, Ha’aretz correspondent for the occupied Palestinian territories. "There were whole families, and women and men, traditional and modern, and middle-class and workers. Everybody went very determined to show that this is enough," Hass says.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the West Bank, which saw the largest protest in years Thursday night. Up to 50,000 people were said to have marched from Ramallah towards Jerusalem. Two Palestinians were killed and over 200 were wounded when Israeli soldiers fired live ammunition. More protests are happening in the West Bank today.
For more, we are joined on the telephone from Ramallah by Amira Hass, theHa’aretz correspondent for the occupied Palestinian territories, the only Israeli Jewish journalist to have spent decades living in and reporting from Gaza and the West Bank.
Amira, describe the protest last night.
AMIRA HASS: It was less than 50,000, but it was really high-spirited. Everybody felt that there is a big change now happening. Everybody who—the people who went, there were whole families, and women and men, and traditional and modern, and more upper—middle-class and workers. Everybody went, very determined to show, not so much to the Israelis, I think, but to the Palestinian Authority, that this is enough, that their unforgivable silence, especially during the first week, and their inability to say that this is the people that is being murdered in Gaza, and it’s not a dispute between Hamas and Fatah, that this has to be stopped. This is how I see it. Of course it was also a message to the Israelis.
And today, as you said, there are demonstrations all over. I just returned from a very silent, very—not depressed, but stressed funeral of the guy who was killed in that yesterday. It’s a kid that’s 17 years old from Qalandia refugee camp. And people feel that there is—it is a turning point. That’s for sure. That’s a turning point in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, there are demonstrations. In Jerusalem, youngsters, I heard, forced their way to al-Aqsa, because they are not allowed to get into prayers into al-Aqsa, so they forced their way through the police checkpoint. So things—certainly things are changing, and things are changing because people also are so shocked by what is happening to their people in Gaza, and they are unable to do a thing for them.
AMY GOODMAN: What was the Israeli military response to the protest, Amira?
AMIRA HASS: I went a bit late. I mean, I wasn’t, of course—I wouldn’t have gone to near the checkpoint, but I know that, OK, youngsters reached the checkpoint rather early, when the demonstrations started some three or four kilometers to the north. And they started with clashes, but they were—as a friend told me, there was no danger to the life of the soldiers, but the soldiers immediately started shooting live ammunition and a bit rubber-coated metal bullets. So kids—when I was walking towards the place, I’ve already heard several ambulances going back and forth, carrying people who were injured.
And later on, I was in the hospital, because a friend—a child of a friend of mine was wounded. But also I would have gone there anyway. And all people who were injured, most of them were injured in the legs. And you saw youngsters limping and then being taken care of. Those who were less serious went to other hospitals, and those who were more serious were operated on.
I know of a young woman who is—who maybe she was there near the checkpoint, very near, and she was hit, and she might lose her leg. There is another woman—women participated. Many women were also near the checkpoint, very near the checkpoint, and were probably targeted because it was not—it was shooting by snipers. So this was the response of the army.
Later on, I understand that there was some—one of those stupid shooting to the air from the part of some Palestinians. We don’t know who. And this gave the army an excuse to say that, oh, the people they shot, they started the shooting, which is of course false.
AMY GOODMAN: Amira Hass, you have been covering the territories for decades. The word of a ceasefire coming through, with Secretary of State Kerry in Cairo, what are your thoughts on what it means? And what is Hamas calling for, and the Palestinian people, as well?
AMIRA HASS: You know, the truth is that I didn’t even follow it in the last few days, this, because it’s impossible to follow everything, and I try to be in contact with my friends in Gaza to get—to hear from them what is happening, and then to write. So I leave these political things a bit aside, especially in the last two, three days.
But in general, some things are evolving in the sense of the discourse of Palestinians about what demands should be. And it’s very interesting because the demands of Hamas started now after several years in power. They started to reconnect with the West Bank. And this is the big change. Probably they did it because they understood that Egypt is not—I mean, they have lost all of these relations with Egypt after the putsch against the Muslim Brothers. And this was one of their big mistakes, as I see, during—after they were victorious in the elections in 2006, strengthened their hold on Gaza, played into this fantasy that Gaza can be a separate entity and a state or a mini—or a quasi-state, and they can run like a government, actually repeating the mistakes of the PA before and now, and thus enhancing this disconnection between Gaza and the West Bank, the disconnection mostly of the communities of the—[no audio]
AMY GOODMAN: Amira?
AMIRA HASS: And the PA did the same thing—yeah. The PA did the same thing. So what is happening now, their discourse is: They demand to lift this closure and reconnect also with the West Bank. This is a big change.
AMY GOODMAN: And when you say "lift the closure," lift the siege, the blockade, explain what exactly that is.
AMIRA HASS: Gaza is not under siege since seven years only. I mean, Gaza has been under very severe terms of restrictions of movement and a disconnection from the world actually since the beginning of the ’90s. This is also something that people tend to forget, and I am always very angry about that. And Hamas made some kind of a political monopoly about it, saying that the closure started when they came to power. Yes, it intensified, but it started much earlier, because [no audio] to disconnect Gaza and the West Bank.
So now Hamas, still, when they talk about lifting the closure, they cannot really imagine opening to the West Bank, the [no audio] opening the borders for raw material, the passages to having raw material enter in Gaza, to have some economical life, and to have some connection to the world through Gaza—through Rafah. But other people, what they understand is that—and people in Gaza, what they understand, they want to go back and live and be Palestinians in this country and go back to the West Bank and have the connections with the West Bank. So this is a discourse developing or coming back to the fore.
We don’t know. I mean, this is the main—you know, like the Israeli minister of what’s so-called defense said just recently—he said, "Oh, yeah, I don’t mind that Abbas’ people will be guarding the Rafah checkpoint, but I will never let Abbas go back and rule Gaza," which means we don’t want Gaza and the West Bank be one unit. We don’t want it. I mean, the Israelis, the Israeli government doesn’t want it, and hasn’t wanted it since the beginning of the ’90s.
So, will this develop into a political discourse and political analysis, political strategy, that changes this? I cannot tell. It’s too early, because one of the things that we see missing is really—not a leadership, but a group which has the confidence of the people and that can organize and can lead now all this upsurge of anger and disgust with what is happening in Gaza and people who are fed up with this occupation. So, there is no group now, no reliable group, that can lead this and strategize this phenomenon. And this is what’s worrying me.
AMY GOODMAN: Amira Hass, I want to thank you for being with us, Ha’aretzcorrespondent for the occupied Palestinian territories. She’s speaking to us from Ramallah, where a mass protest took place just last night and are expected to continue today. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we go back to Gaza City to speak to a doctor from al-Shifa Hospital about what’s been happening inside the hospital walls. Stay with us.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
FRIDAY, JULY 25, 2014

Doctor: After "Losing Everything," Gazans Cling to Hope That Conflict Will End Crippling Siege

We are joined from Gaza City by Dr. Belal Dabour of Shifa Hospital, the largest in Gaza. Dabour describes how Shifa has been stretched beyond capacity since the Israeli military assault began on July 8, struggling to treat thousands of victims amidst frequent power cuts and outdated equipment. He also discusses the hopes of his Gazan patients that the current conflict will bring an end to Israel’s eight-year siege. "After eight years, life has become intolerable," Dabour says. "People have no hope. They feel that the horizon for any prosperous future is [impossible] until the siege is lifted."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We return to Gaza City to talk to Dr. Belal Dabour. Dr. Dabour works at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, the largest hospital in the Gaza Strip. It has only 11 beds in the emergency room and six operating theaters, which have been stretched beyond capacity since the Israeli military assault began on July 8th. Shifa medical staff have been struggling to treat thousands of injured despite frequent power cuts and often outdated equipment. Dr. Belal Dabour recently wrote a piecefor The Electronic Intifada headlined "The Boy Who Clung to the Paramedic: The Story Behind the Photo."
Welcome to Democracy Now! Why don’t we start off on the effects of the Beit Hanoun U.N. school, that was a shelter, being shelled, 16 people killed, hundreds wounded? Have you seen any of those who were wounded at Shifa, Dr. Dabour?
DR. BELAL DABOUR: Yeah, this accident happened—this attack happened while it was my day off. However, the medical sources confirmed the death of 16 civilians. This is not the first attack of the kind. This is the attack number four in just four days which targeted U.N.-run school. And also these four days, about three attacks targeted hospitals and medical centers. Sixteen people died. That only just few, because yesterday more than 100 were killed.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Dabour, can you talk about, overall, the situation in Gaza and how you’re operating at the hospital?
DR. BELAL DABOUR: The Shifa Hospital is the largest hospital in Gaza Strip. It’s the hospital with the specialty centers. Doctors there are striving to deal with the cases. The staff has been divided into three teams, each team taking 24-hour shifts and then resting for about 48 hours, depending on the situation. Twenty-four/seven for 19 days now, there are casualties and bodies arriving at the hospital. The staff are stretched. The situation is very bad.
Let me speak about the night—last Sunday morning, when the Shejaiya massacre took place. Let me describe the scene at the operation room, for starting. At the operation room, six rooms were operating at the same time. The whole blood bank was moved to the theater, to the hole. There was a worker with this big bag of blood bags and the plasma, and just sitting there and distributing blood bags to the theaters, from number one to number six. And this continued all day long. A lot of people died inside the theater, in addition to the 60 people already whose bodies have been taken from the scene and the dozens others that are estimated to be stranded under the rubble. This is the Sunday.
However, my latest shift was two days ago, and I ended my shift Thursday morning. And from 3:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., we received about five bodies in just five hours, in just one hospital. And also we received more than three dozen injuries, a lot of them children and one whole family. This is the situation. And the biggest problem is that it’s not getting any better. Day by day, it’s getting worse and worse. The numbers are including, and the medical supplies are shortening, the shortages increasing as we speak now.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Belal Dabour, can you tell us about the photo of the little boy clinging to the paramedic that has gone viral?
DR. BELAL DABOUR: Yeah. This boy was actually lucky, for two things. First of all, his injuries could have been very serious. He could have died immediately. But for some miraculous thing, he did not. Second of all, there was a photographer at the time, and he captured the right photo and in the right time. However, up until 12:00 a.m. yesterday, more than 200 children have been killed in just those 18 days, and more than 1,400 children have been wounded. Those were not very lucky to be caught on camera, and those of them who were caught on camera were not very lucky, by the dynamics of social media, to make their photos go viral. I just want to stress the point that this photo, it might be forgotten with time; however, this boy was lucky: At least some people will remember him for some time. But there are thousands. The misery of thousands is not being reported. The world is not hearing about them. They are just numbers. And we are not numbers.
This boy, as I wrote in my piece, he came to the hospital injured with massive shrapnels. He was agitated. He was caught up in a state somehow in the middle between being awake and asleep, because he was sleeping safely in his home, and suddenly his home was targeted. So, maybe he was in a dream or something, so he was like in the middle of hallucination, not completely aware of his surroundings. And that’s probably the reason why he kept screaming, "Bring my father! I want my father!" And that’s why he kept clinging to the paramedic and refused to let go. However, in order to save his life, we had to sedate him with some drug, and the doctors immediately operated on him. And just about this area, there was a shrapnel this big that has penetrated his neck about one or two centimeters away from a big vessel in this area. He was very lucky that this vessel was not hit.
I believe he survived. With all of the flow of casualties, I could not know neither his name or if he was united with his father or what was the fate of the rest of his family. I only saw three other of his brothers. Two of them are just below three years, and the other a teenager. Those should be fine now. But what happened to the rest of the family? Are they under the rubble? Or if they are uninjured, why they were not—why didn’t we see them at the emergency room? I am not aware. But maybe this is for the best, because a little mystery—people tend to like mystery. Some mystery to the story might make it stick in the memories for a little bit longer, before he gets forgotten with the massive amount of people killed here and the increasing numbers.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Belal Dabour, you are a doctor, but you are also a Palestinian living in Gaza right now. Can you describe your daily life?
DR. BELAL DABOUR: Our daily life is basically just sitting at the house waiting for the next to come. My area is now swarming with people who are taking shelter from the North Gaza. I live somehow closer to the west side of Gaza City. In my house, now there are currently three families, three uncles who evacuated from the north. This situation is the same for all of my neighbors. Therefore, you can find some life in the streets; however, from my house and to the east, the life is paralyzed. Only ambulances can pass through the streets. All aspect of life are paralyzed, of course. And in addition, this is in addition to the problems with electricity. Yesterday only 24 hours—only one hour per 24 hours, we had power supply; today, little less than three hours. And also, this is affecting the sewage pumping, and this is affecting the water supply. This situation is not in my area; it is in the whole of Gaza Strip.
Now I’m speaking, and behind me there are artillery shells falling on the area of al-Zeitoun, and to the right, the Shejaiya area is also, where the massacre happened, it’s still being bombarded at the moment. I’m speaking to you and hearing shells with my left ear. This continuous shelling has been nonstop for more than one week now. It started last Thursday, and now we are on Friday, so for eight days there are explosions nonstopping for 24/7.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the feeling of the Palestinian people in Gaza when the Israeli military says, if the rocket fire—if the Hamas rocket fire will stop, the thousands of rockets that are coming from Gaza, that they would begin to talk about a ceasefire? Is there support for the Hamas rockets stopping, Dr. Dabour?
DR. BELAL DABOUR: The Israeli side always try to sell the theory that this is a conflict between two states. However, we are not talking about a war between two states. We are talking about Gaza Strip, an area under occupation until now that is being besieged and bombed. And we are talking about Israel, a massive force with a extensive army and sophisticated weaponry, targeting such enclaved area, not only targeting them, but for eight years people have been deprived from all means to live. So, if you look at the situation this way, you will find that anything that comes from Gaza is a form of resistance, whether you agree with it or not. And this is what the people are saying.
Two days ago, when Khaled Meshaal, senior Hamas officer, he spoke and said that there will be no ceasefire unless there is lifting of the siege, I was at Shifa Hospital, and beside me were the families of the people who were injured—at the surgery department—who were injured from the Shejaiya massacre. And they kept screaming at Meshaal. They said that if he accepts, or if Hamas accepts that a ceasefire shall be achieved with no lifting of the siege, they will all start to be the enemies of Hamas, because they have lost everything, and they have no hope, so at least those sacrifices should not go to waste, should not go without the lifting of the siege. This is the minimum that the people have been asking. This is not what Hamas say. And if your correspondents just make a few interviews at the streets, I suspect that anyone will say otherwise.
AMY GOODMAN: And can you explain just the effect of this siege, what it is? In the United States, it is not as clear, when you talk about the siege, what the siege of Gaza means. When Israeli officials are interviewed, like, for example, Mark Regev, the spokesperson for the prime minister, when someone says Gaza being occupied, he says, "No, we left Gaza many years ago."
DR. BELAL DABOUR: Well, he can say whatever he says, but the United Nations still treats Gaza as an occupied strip. By the siege of Gaza, your guest before me said that Gaza has been besieged for decades now. And this is true. But for the previous eight years, the siege has taken the forms—have taken many forms. For four years, until 2010, the siege meant that there was absolutely no movement outside of Gaza Strip and that there were shortages of electricity, shortages—Israel denied entry of medicines, denied entry of most types of food. Israel used to calculate how much calories each person in Gaza should allow, and that calculation was about 2,100 calories per person. And this was published in Ha’aretz.
However, now the siege is taking another smarter form. For example, now we can get whatever medicines we want, speaking about the health sector. But they put a ban on the unity government. They put a ban on the movement of finances to the Gazan banks. They also crush the economy so that internal revenues are now up to zero. And then they say, "You can have whatever medicines you want." So the siege is continuous for eight years, but it’s taken many forms. However, one common manifestation of this siege is that now, after eight years, life has become intolerable, and people have no—they have no hope, and they feel that the horizon for any prosper futures for themselves or for the future is not seen, at least now, until the siege is lifted.
AMY GOODMAN: And if there is a ceasefire—you have, what, more than 2,600 homes that have been destroyed, thousands more that have been damaged. What happens if there’s a ceasefire?
DR. BELAL DABOUR: Yeah, let me tell you about the war in 2008. About 5,000 houses were completely destroyed. Those houses remained unbuilt, unreconstructed for about two years, until the tunnels solved some of the problem. Some construction materials started coming in through the tunnels. And then, after the tunnels started working and we started getting some construction materials, Israel allowed some other construction materials to get into Gaza through UNRWA. So for two years, people were staying at their relatives or at whatever shelter they could provide. This tragedy now, if the siege is not lifted, it shall be repeated again, and for God knows how long. It might continue forever until the siege is lifted, because now even the tunnels that were used to find temporary solution are gone by now.
AMY GOODMAN: You have a final comment, Dr. Belal Dabour. I’m seeing a tweet that’s coming right from the AP office where you are standing, overlooking Gaza City, that says large parts of Gaza City are now being shelled by artillery. Your final comment?
DR. BELAL DABOUR: My comment is that, as a doctor, if this situation was an illness, I would prescribe this medicine. As Dr. Mads Gilbert said, the best medicine is first, number one, stop the assault immediately; and, number two, stop the siege; and, number three, lift the occupation. But the most important now is for these massacres to stop, and number two is for the siege to be lifted, to allow the thousands of houses and the hospitals and the centers that were hit in this war, in addition to the previous inhumane circumstances, to allow them to be lifted at least. And then we can discuss number three, the lifting of the occupation. But number one, stop the killing immediately.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Belal Dabour, I thank you for being with us. I see that just behind your head there is smoke coming up. If you step—just shift aside, we will see what is directly behind you. That’s right. Dr. Belal Dabour, please stay safe—works at the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. His piece at The Electronic Intifada called "The Boy Who Clung to the Paramedic: The Story Behind the Photo."
That does it for the show. I’ll be speaking on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight onHBO, 10:00 Eastern Standard Time. Tomorrow night, I’ll be speaking on Martha’s Vineyard. Check our website at democracynow.org.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->

Our Media v. Reality

$
0
0

THE ABSURD TIMES


 


Illustration: An illustrated comment on US versions of the crash in Ukraine.  Colin Powell claimed to have been lied to or coerced into testifying at the UN that Saddam Hussein has weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.  He didn't, and everyone knew he didn't.  George Jr. wanted to purge his Oedipal conflicts by killing Saddam, and nothing else mattered.  This is so true that, if the 9/11 attacks did not happen through Osama, they would have been manufactured anyway by the administration.  This is what makes conspiracy theories about the attacks so plausible. 


This is our time to discuss the media coverage of both the Gaza conflict and Ukraine.  Having said that, the urge simply Is not that strong anymore.  Surely, anyone who visits the site regularly knows how it operates.  No corporate entity is going to support honest coverage of all issues, and there is not much money to be made in telling the truth about Israel or Russia.  Ukraine has been taken over by a right wing phalanx of ideologues who tell their people that they will henceforth be free.  Its government attacks and bombards town in the East regularly.  No matter what numbers you see about people wanting to keep Ukraine united, even in the East, you can note hundreds of thousands crossing the border to the safety of Russia. 

Russia has a long history of being surrounded by enemies and we are doing our best, breaking our word on solemn promises and assurances, to recreate that state of affairs today.  The Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO, for which there is no excuse, is expanding to surround Russia again.  Ukraine was the point where Putin called a halt to the expansion.   The only surprise today is that he did not invade and annex the territory east of Kiev and make it part of the Russian Federation.   He saved Obama from making the mistake of invading Syria and there will be absolutely no substantial support against Russia from Europe, no matter who our President was. 

He was, however, unable to save us from other mistakes such as Libya.  If certain implausible members of congress really want to investigate Benghazi, the focus should be on why we invaded in the first place.  If you look at Libya today, you will notice that we shut down our embassy in Tripoli -- the country is in chaos since Gaddafi is no longer there to run it.   Obama did manage to assassinate Bin Laden and we can see what a better world we live in now as a result. 

 
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014

Katrina vanden Heuvel: With 100,000+ Displaced, Why Is U.S. Ignoring Ukraine’s Civil War?

A high-level rebel commander has confirmed for the first time that pro-Russian separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the kind the United States says was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing all 298 on board. He blamed Ukrainian authorities for provoking the strike, saying they deliberately launched airstrikes in the area, even though they knew the missile system was in place and rebels would fight back. Meanwhile, the area near the Russian border continues to see heavy fighting between government forces and Russian-backed separatists. On Wednesday, two Ukrainian fighter jets were shot down not far from where the Malaysian airliner was hit. "The tragedy of the downing of the plane occurred in the context of this virtually unreported civil war," says Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation, who has reported on Russia for decades. "Americans have been done a disservice by one-sided media coverage [of the conflict]." Vanden Heuvel notes more than 110,000 refugees from eastern Ukraine have fled to Russia, and 56,000 are internally displaced in Ukraine.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn to Ukraine, where on Wednesday a rebel leader confirmed for the first time pro-Russian separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the kind the United States [says] was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The high-level commander blamed Ukrainian authorities for provoking the strike that killed all 298 on board. He said Kiev had deliberately launched airstrikes in the area even though it knew the BUK missile system was in place and rebels would fight back.
ALEXANDER KHODAKOVSKY: [translated] They provoked the usage of the BUK missile system, for example, by starting to attack the object that they don’t need at all, Saur Mogila, that hadn’t been attacked by planes for a week before that. And on that day, they pushed so hard. And at the moment of attack, at the moment of the civilian plane flying, they were attacking Saur Mogila. So even if there was aBUK missile system, and even if it has been used, Ukraine did everything for the civilian plane to be shot down.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as two Ukrainian fighter jets were shot down in eastern Ukraine Wednesday, not far from where the Malaysian airliner was hit. The area near the Russian border continues to see heavy fighting between government forces and Russian-backed separatists. Also on Wednesday, lawmakers in Ukraine’s Parliament broke into a fistfight after a decree passed that would enlist male citizens under 50 to combat Russian forces on the border.
And coffins carrying 40 of the 193 Dutch victims on the downed flight arrived in the Netherlands, as the government declared a day of national mourning. Crowds gathered on bridges along the 65-mile route to throw flowers onto the convoy of hearses.
For more, we’re joined by Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation. She has reported on Russia for decades and blogs at TheNation.com, is also a columnist for the WashingtonPost.com. Her latest column is headlined "Downing of Flight 17 Should Trigger Talks, Not More Violence."
Talk about the latest, what people understand about Ukraine, what you feel is being missed.
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I think the big story that has gone unreported in the kind of one-sided media narrative that Americans have been given in these last months is the unreported war in the southeast of Ukraine. The Nation published astory a few weeks ago called "The Silence of [American] Hawks [About] Kiev’s Atrocities," and we’re seeing in the downing of the plane—the tragedy of the downing of the plane occurred in the context of this virtually unreported civil war. Today, there are stories that Kiev has used four Grad rockets—these are missile launcher rockets—in Luhansk. The OSCE, the Organization [for] Security and Co-operation in Europe, is alleging civilian deaths in these parts. So I think, Amy, it’s the context that is needed. My column—
AMY GOODMAN: How many people have died in this war?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, they’re reporting—I have figures here. They’re reporting 250 people have been killed in Luhansk, one of the major cities in the eastern part of Ukraine, 800 injured since the war began; 432, including 36 women, six children, died in Donetsk since April; 110,000 refugees from southeastern Ukraine have fled to Russia. There are 56,000 displaced people in Ukraine.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you call this a civil war?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I would call this a civil war. And the tragedy, Amy, is that Ukraine has been a deeply divided country through time—language, religion, part of the country pro-Russian, ethnically Russian. This did not need to become a military civil war. There was the possibility—and this is what I tried to address in the column—in the wake of this tragedy of the downing of the plane. There should be a renewed effort, not to trigger more violence, but to trigger ceasefire, to trigger talks that could end the humanitarian catastrophe I’m describing in the southeast of Ukraine.
And another unreported story, Amy, is that there were ceasefire talks in June with Russia, France, Germany, Ukraine, the United States and Kiev. Poroshenko, the president, pulled out after two days. The United States acceded, if not supported or egged on, that decision, and the military offensive began anew. There must be an end to the violence.
And think just commonsense common sense. Ukraine, if it is to recover, if it is to emerge as a financially stable country with some elements of democracy, needs to be a bridge between East and West, between Russia and the West. The IMF, just months after agreeing to a $17 billion loan program, just yesterday acknowledged what is known, which is that there is a terribly sharp economic downturn in Ukraine. The costs of rebuilding this country are going to be enormous. And the oligarchs, Amy, the oligarchical control of this country, I think remains unreported, as well. You know, the protesters, the good protesters in Maidan, in the square, in last year, so much of their protest was about oligarchical kleptocracy. And that grip on the country remains.
So I think it’s a very—I think Americans have been done a disservice by the one-sided media coverage. I will say, and I hope in this case that The Nation's coverage, others' coverage—Robert Parry has been doing interesting coverage—has pushed The New York Times and The Washington Post, for example, in these last days to cover the civilian casualties and the assaults on cities like Donetsk, which has become a virtual ghost town.
AMY GOODMAN: What about the U.S. role?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: The U.S. role—I don’t understand the U.S. role, to be honest. I mean, it is not in the national security interest of the United States to make Ukraine a Cold War proxy, but it is becoming that. This is a regional civil war that has been internationalized. John Kerry often sounds like he’s the secretary of war, not the secretary of state. We have allied ourselves, tethered ourselves to the Kiev government in a way that may make it very difficult to find a way beyond a new Cold War, if not a hot war. And, Amy, a Cold War will warp both countries’ politics and international relations. I’m thinking of Russia and the United States. And think of what this has done in terms of diverting our attention and resources from the real security, the real threats, the real possibilities of providing and building a new world.
So I think America—it’s also unreported, underreported, you know, America sent advisers to Ukraine to embed with its military. America has put forward a package of night goggles and other military equipment. John Brennan, the head of the CIA—finally reported—headed off to Kiev. So, but I don’t—it is not in the U.S.'s interest. It is not in the world's interest. It is not in Ukraine’s interest. Yet, there is not a peep out of Congress. There is not a peep. And the media is so one-sided that we are not having a debate that is also deserving of America’s people. The wisdom, though, of America’s people, the disconnect we see between the Beltway establishment, the elite and the media elite, is very telling. America’s people are not interested in sending weapons. They weren’t interested in sending weapons to Syria. They’re not interested in sending weapons to Ukraine. They’re not interested in a war.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] We are being called on to use our influence with the separatists in southeastern Ukraine. Of course we will do everything in our power, but that is not nearly enough. Ultimately, there is a need to call on the authorities in Kiev to respect basic norms of decency and, at least for a short time, implement a ceasefire for the investigation.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Vladimir Putin. Can you talk about Putin’s role and then how the U.S. actions compare to Europe—I mean, and the Dutch, in particular?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: That’s, I think, very important. I think the Dutch—and I have family in Holland. And I think the Dutch, in the way they have grieved in this tragic moment, are a model of dignity and a model of saying, "We’re not going to rush to judgment or use this as a political game, that is a disservice that did not honor those we have lost," as opposed to the United States, I have to say, where John Kerry, Secretary of State Kerry, rushed quickly, as did Samantha Power, someone whose work I admire but who’s supremely unsuited to be our ambassador to the United Nations at this moment. They rushed to judgment and said Russia played a role. And now the intelligence community is saying, "We don’t know. This was a mistake. We don’t know who actually played a role."
On sanctions, the United States, again, has led the way. The European Community, much of it, the key member being Germany here and France, have resisted. There is a tendency in this country to say it’s because of their trading ties. I think that’s true, but I think it underestimates the fact that they have in their DNA a history that understands that to have a sullen, angry Russia on their border is not in anyone’s interest.
On Putin, where do I begin? Putin is an authoritarian leader. On the other hand—he has done repressive things in his country, things I abhor, in terms of gay rights, in terms of women’s rights. It will become more repressive if this goes on in the way it is. The hawks of both sides always become more powerful when this happens. But Putin has a politics in his country, just as we have in ours. He has a right wing, a nationalist right wing, which has been pushing him to be far more assertive. I have friends, journalists who report on the right in Russia, and the right has been in a fury in these last weeks. "Our people," and again, that’s very complicated because Russia should not say "our people," but pro-Russian, ethnic Russians in Ukraine being bombarded and pounded, and where is Putin?
I do think Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov—again, not reported—have been calling for a ceasefire since April. The other day, Tuesday, in his speech, Putin said that he would do what he could to restrain the rebels. I think there are no question there are ties, but there is no question that what we’ve seen emerge in southeastern Ukraine, whenever you have a war like this, a civil war, the good guys don’t often emerge. I’m not talking, obviously, about the civilians who have been under assault, but you have the Rambos of Russia, those who fought in Chechnya or in Afghanistan. But Putin cannot do everything, but he can restrain these forces, some of them, but in the context of a real ceasefire, real negotiations, and in the context of the United States not playing games, as it has since the end of the first Cold War in expanding its economic, political and other influence to the doors of Russia, and the whole NATOquestion, Amy, again unreported.
Last November, when this whole EU offer triggered, in many ways, this conflict, what was unreported was there was a clause in that which was a kind of secret entry door for Ukraine to enter NATO. This is a Russian red line. There’s no reason, first of all, that we should have NATO in these times. It’s a military alliance. It’s not a tea party—that used to have more, different resonance. But anyway, so I think Putin is as—listen, the media in this country has so demonized Putin. As I said, he is an authoritarian. But I hate to quote—I will quote someone I know we have very mixed feelings about: Henry Kissinger. Putin—he has said, "Demonizing Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for not having a policy." And I think we need a policy, America needs a policy, not an attitude, as it engages Russia.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Katrina vanden Heuvel, I want to thank you for being with us, editor and publisher of The Nation. We will link to her column, "Downing of Flight 17 Should Trigger Talks, Not More Violence."


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
FRIDAY, JULY 18, 2014

Stephen Cohen: Downed Malaysian Plane Raises Risk of War Between Russia and the West

A Malaysia Airlines flight carrying 298 people has exploded and crashed in eastern Ukraine, killing everyone on board. U.S. and Ukrainian officials say the Boeing 777 was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile, but it is unclear who fired the missile. The plane was traveling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with passengers from at least 10 countries on board, including 173 Dutch nationals, 44 Malaysians and 27 Australians. As many as 100 of the world’s leading AIDSresearchers and advocates were reportedly on the plane en route to a conference in Australia, including the pioneering researcher and former president of the International AIDS Society, Joep Lange. Both sides in Ukraine’s conflict are blaming each other for downing the plane. We speak with Professor Stephen Cohen on what this incident could mean for the region. His most article for The Nation magazine is "The Silence of American Hawks About Kiev’s Atrocities."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A Malaysia Airlines flight carrying 298 people has exploded and crashed in eastern Ukraine, killing everyone on board. U.S. and Ukrainian officials say the Boeing 777 was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile, but it’s unclear who fired the missile. The plane was traveling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with passengers from at least 10 countries on board, including 173 Dutch nationals, 44 Malaysians and 27 Australians. As many as 100 of the world’s leading AIDS researchers and advocates were reportedly on the plane en route to a conference in Australia, including the pioneering researcher and former president of the International AIDS Society, Joep Lange. Both sides in Ukraine’s conflict are blaming each other for downing the plane. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak vowed to launch a full investigation into what happened.
PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK: We must, and we will, find out precisely what happened to this flight. No stone will be left unturned. If it transpires that the plane was indeed shot down, we insist that the perpetrators must swiftly be brought to justice.
AMY GOODMAN: After the plane crashed, Russian media quoted witnesses saying they saw the plane being hit by what looked like a rocket. There have been several other recent disputes over planes being attacked over eastern Ukraine. On Thursday, Ukrainian officials blamed the Russian air force for shooting down one of its ground attack jets and a transport plane earlier in the week.
Over the past few days, Western governments have expressed growing concern that Russia is amping up its military support for separatists in eastern Ukraine. The United States strengthened its economic sanctions against Russia this week, but the European Union has so far declined to follow suit.
For more, we’re joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent piece forThe Nation is headlined, "The Silence of American Hawks About Kiev’s Atrocities." His book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is out in paperback.
Professor Cohen, welcome to Democracy Now! What do you think we should understand about what has taken place?
STEPHEN COHEN: The horror of it all, to quote Conrad, watching your reports on Gaza, knowing what I know but what’s not being reported in the mainstream media about what’s been going on in eastern Ukraine cities—these cities have been pounded by Kiev—and now this. "Emeritus," as you call me, means old. I’ve seen this before. One function of cold war is innocent victims. The people who died, nearly 300, from many countries, are the first victims, nonresidential victims, of the new Cold War. This crash, this shootdown, will make everything worse, no matter who did it.
There are several theoretical possibilities. I am not a conspiracy buff, but we know in the history of the Cold War, there are provocations, people who want to make things worse. So, in Moscow, and not only in Moscow, there are theories that somebody wanted this to happen. I just can’t believe anybody would do it, but you can’t rule anything out.
The other possibility is, because the Ukrainian government itself has a capability to shoot down planes. By the way, the Ukrainian government shot down a Russian passenger jet, I think in 2001. It was flying from Tel Aviv to Siberia. It was an accident. Competence is always a factor when you have these weapons.
Another possibility is that the rebels—we call them separatists, but they weren’t separatists in the beginning, they just wanted home rule in Ukraine—that they had the capability. But there’s a debate, because this plane was flying at commercial levels, normally beyond the reach of what they can carry on their shoulders.
There’s the possibility that the Russians aided and abetted them, possibly from Russian territory, but I rule that out because, in the end, when you don’t know who has committed a crime, the first question a professional investigator asks is, "Did anybody have a motive?" and the Russians certainly had no motive here. This is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position.
That’s what we know so far. Maybe we’ll know more. We may never know who did this.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the Obama administration has expanded U.S. sanctions on Russia in the latest round of a standoff over Ukraine. Speaking at the White House, President Obama said Russia has failed to drop military support for pro-Russian separatists.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Given its continued provocations in Ukraine, today I have approved a new set of sanctions on some of Russia’s largest companies and financial institutions. Along with our allies, with whom I have been coordinating closely the last several days and weeks, I have repeatedly made it clear that Russia must halt the flow of weapons and fighters across the border into Ukraine, that Russia must urge separatists to release their hostages and support a ceasefire, that Russia needs to pursue internationally mediated talks and agree to meaningful monitors on the border.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Your response?
STEPHEN COHEN: Sanctions are beside the point. Obviously they’ll cause economic pain, possibly equally to Europe, which doesn’t want them, didn’t want them. Major American corporations took out ads in major American newspapers before Obama did this, asking Obama not to do it. When you resort to sanctions, it means you have no policy. You have an attitude. And the anti-Putin attitude in Washington is driving American policy.
Let me mention, because I think it’s relevant to what you’re covering here, your very, very powerful segments before I came on today about what’s going on in Gaza, the pounding of these cities, the defenselessness of ordinary people. The same thing has been happening in East Ukrainian cities—bombing, shelling, mortaring by the Kiev government—whatever we think of that government. But that government is backed 150 percent by the White House. Every day, the White House and the State Department approve of what Kiev’s been doing. We don’t know how many innocent civilians, women and children, have died. We know there’s probably several hundred thousand refugees that have run from these cities. The cities are Donetsk, Luhansk, Kramatorsk, Slovyansk—a whole series of cities whose names are not familiar to Americans. The fact is, Americans know nothing about this. We know something about what’s happening in Gaza, and there’s a division of opinion in the United States: The Israelis should do this, the Israelis should not do this. But we know there are victims: We see them. Sometimes the mainstream media yanks a reporter, as you just showed, who shows it too vividly, because it offends the perception of what’s right or wrong. But we are not shown anything about what’s happened in these Ukrainian cities, these eastern Ukrainian cities.
Why is that important? Because this airliner, this shootdown, took place in that context. The American media says it must have been the bad guys—that is, the rebels—because they’ve shot down other airplanes. This is true, but the airplanes they’ve been shooting down are Ukraine’s military warplanes that have come to bomb the women and children of these cities. We don’t know that.
AMY GOODMAN: There have been several discussions—in the corporate media, it was said that this plane might have had a sort of unusual path, had gone further south, and that they thought it was a Ukrainian military plane.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Also, in terms of the black boxes, that Ukrainian officials andNTSB cannot get there because it’s rebel-held territory, and that the rebels might have taken the black boxes.
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, the rebels have said they’re going to turn them over to Moscow, and Moscow will not conceal them. I mean, Moscow is going to play openness, so far as we know. But what’s preposterous, of course, is the prime minister of Malaysia coming out and telling us that Malaysia will uncover this mystery, when it still can’t find its missing airliner. This is just absolutely preposterous. But you’re right, the investigation is going to be politicized. Will we ever know?
Let me make the point again, though, because you hearkened back to it: This is a war zone. It’s a war zone. It’s been a war zone, an air war zone, for at least a month. Americans don’t know that. I hear you’ve shown it. But that’s—
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, that’s one of the reasons that—well, what I wanted to ask you is, because of what’s been going on in Syria, in Iraq, and now with the Israeli attacks on Gaza, it’s almost as if what’s going on in Ukraine has receded in the consciousness of the media here in this country, even though it’s conceivably much more dangerous and has more long-term impact on the United States.
STEPHEN COHEN: I don’t want to prioritize death—I mean, whose death is worse or not so worse. But the reality is, if you’re going to ask an historian, that the conflict in the Middle East, including Iraq, is going to affect regional politics, but the conflict in Ukraine is going to affect global politics, because we are now in a new Cold War with Russia. We have been for several months. One aspect of cold war is civilian deaths. We’ve had these shootdowns. We had them in the old Cold War. This is going to get worse. It also brings us closer to war between Russia and the West, NATO and the United States. So, if you’re going to ask which is more important—Russians have a saying that, which is worse? And the answer is, both are worse. They’re all worse. But if you’re going to ask which is going to have impact for our grandchildren, it’s what’s going on in Ukraine now.
AMY GOODMAN: We only have 30 seconds, but Obama announcing stricter sanctions against Russia, how significant is this? It was a day before the downing of the plane.
STEPHEN COHEN: I’ll repeat what I said before: By resorting to sanctions, Obama reminds us he has no policy toward Ukraine or Russia other than to blame Putin. That’s not a policy; that’s an attitude.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics, New York University and Princeton University. We’ll link to his piece in The Nation. His latest book, just out in paperback, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War.
That does it for our show. I’ll be speaking at the Mark Twain House & Museum inHartford, Connecticut, Monday, July 21st, at 7:00, and then on July 26th on Martha’s Vineyard. That’s Saturday, 7:00 p.m., Katharine Cornell Auditorium in Vineyard Haven. Check our website at democracynow.org.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


-->

Israel Inspries -- Repugnance

$
0
0

THE ABSURD TIMES




 




Illustration: Latuff: Obama and War Crimes


            Repugnance, disgust, loathing, nausea -- all of these terms together hardly begin to describe world reaction to what is being done by Israel in Gaza.  There is no question about it committing war crimes and the only real debate is over how many.

            Seasoned workers and administrators for the United Nations break down as they try to describe the actions of the army against children, especially.  One reporter, said, completely without irony or scarcasm, "When asked where I would be safest in Gaza, I used to say avoid areas where Hamas is known to be.  Now I tell them to avoid locations with children."

            Even established outlets of the Corporate Press can no longer conceal the atrocities committed and even members of our administration can not avoid showing disgust at the behavior of Israel, despite recently admitting that they were re-supplying Israel with weaponry.  With all the unprecedented support Obama gives to this outlaw state, it is confusing that he is the most despized by the Israeli government.  This, obviously, is racial.  He is what would be called in Yiddish, an bastardization of both Low Middle German, Aramaic, and perhaps Hebrew as a "Schwartzer," a term coming from the German word for "black," but having very negative connotations.

            Below we provide a short transcript an interview with one of those aforementioned United Nations officials.

            In addition, just to have a more complete indictment, we have an extended interview with a Zionist who no longer can accept the claim of Israel to be Zionist.  He also points out that one reason he is doing this is that the real lesson of the Holocaust has nothing to do with a justification of Israel.  The lesson is that for evil to thrive, good people need to allow it.  It is being done in our name, with out tax dollars, by our government.  Furthermore, it is quite clear that Israel has never seriously even considered a two-state solution -- they want it all.

            Finally, the interview with the Truthful Zionist (almost an oxymoron) is extended, so it may be difficult to digest at one sitting.  Still, it needs to be made available.

            Here are the interviews:

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2014

"Enough Blood Has Been Spilled": Israel Condemned for Striking U.N. Shelter as Death Toll Tops 1300

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned what he called the "outrageous" and "unjustifiable" Israeli shelling of a U.N. shelter in Gaza that killed 20 Palestinian civilians on Wednesday. Many of the dead were children who were sleeping. The United Nations has not directly condemned Israel, but says all available evidence points to its responsibility for the bombing. It was the sixth time a U.N. shelter had been bombed since the Israeli offensive in Gaza began 24 days ago. The United Nations said it had given the coordinates of the shelter to the Israeli military 17 times prior to the attack. According to the United Nations, more than 240,000 Palestinians are now staying in U.N. shelters in Gaza. Another 200,000 Palestinians have been displaced and are staying with other families. We are joined by Christopher Gunness, spokesperson for the the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. "UNRWA has reached a breaking point," Gunness says. "Eight of our staff have been killed. Our facilities are overwhelmed. Because of the continued displacement ... we may soon find ourselves where there are tens of thousands of people in the streets of Gaza — no food, no water, no shelter, no safety, frankly, after we’ve found that Israeli artillery is capable of hitting our shelters. And we’re saying: enough is enough."
Image Credit: twitter.com/ChrisGunness

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: "Outrageous" and "unjustifiable." Those were the words used by the United Nations to condemn Israel after at least 20 Palestinian civilians died when a U.N. shelter was bombed in Gaza Wednesday. Many of the dead were children who were sleeping. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said all available evidence points to Israel being behind the attack. It was the sixth time a U.N. shelter had been bombed since the Israeli offensive in Gaza began 24 days ago. The U.N. said it had given the coordinates of the shelter to the Israeli military 17 times prior to the attack.
According to the United Nations, more than 240,000 Palestinians are now staying in U.N. shelters in Gaza. Another 200,000 Palestinians have been displaced and are staying with other families. Hours after the attack, Christopher Gunness, the spokesperson for the the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, broke down during an interview with Al Jazeera.
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: The rights of Palestinians, even their children, are wholesale denied, and it’s appalling.
AMY GOODMAN: Joining us now is Christopher Gunness, the spokesperson for the the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, known asUNRWA. He’s joining us via Democracy Now! video stream from Jerusalem.
Chris, welcome back to Democracy Now!
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: Thank you. Thank you very much.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what took place yesterday?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: Well, we saw huge displacement in Gaza. There are now, in UNRWA facilities, 86 of them, nearly a quarter of a million people. And don’t forget, these are people displaced because of the Israeli ground offensive, and according to international law, it’s the belligerent parties in a conflict which are responsible for the humanitarian consequences, particularly towards civilians. So,UNRWA has reached great breaking point. And we are at the point where eight of our staff have been killed. Our facilities are overwhelmed. Because of the continued displacement and the fact that Israel has dropped leaflets, etc., from the sky and sent text messages, possibly thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands more are going to be displaced. We may soon find ourselves where there are tens of thousands of people in the streets of Gaza—no food, no water, no shelter, no safety, frankly, after we’ve found that Israeli artillery is capable of hitting our safe shelters.
And we’re saying enough is enough. We cannot be expected to have an endless capacity to absorb the consequences of Israeli military decisions, and it is time that we acknowledge that we’ve moved beyond the realm of humanitarian action alone, and we have moved into the realm of political accountability and political action. Pierre Krahenbuhl, the Swiss national who is going to be briefing the Security Council from Gaza today—it promises to be a truly historic moment; it’s at 5:00 Gaza time and is available live-streaming through the U.N. website—is going to tell the Security Council that we have reached breaking point, and it’s up to others, with the political weight, to bring correct influence to bear on the parties. And we all know exactly which parties and which influences have to be brought to bear. It’s time for them to do so, to end this conflict, because the guns need to fall silent. Enough blood has been spilled. And that moment of ceasefire, of permanent ceasefire, will not come soon enough for the embattled people of Gaza—and, by the way, for the six million civilians in Israel who have been terrorized by these appalling barrages of rockets that have been flying out.
AMY GOODMAN: Chris Gunness, how does the U.N. know that it was Israel that attacked the U.N. shelter, the school that the U.N. is using to house thousands of refugees?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: Well, Amy, first of all, the word "attack" is not a word that we’ve used, because that implies deliberate intentionality, and that’s not something we’re saying. We’re saying that an Israeli artillery shell struck the school, and there’s a big difference there. Intentionality is the difference. We know that because we did crater analysis, we did trajectory analysis, we analyzed the debris, including fragments that were found at the scene. And we are confident enough in our initial findings to have gone public and to have made a very strong condemnation of the serious violation of international law by Israeli forces. I think the very fact that a humanitarian organization is making such an accusation against one of the most powerful armies in the world, and certainly in the Middle East, I think says something about how certain of our facts we are. But, you know, let’s have a proper investigation. There must be accountability. There must be transparency and proper reporting. The truth will come out. And, you know, we hope that with truth, as is often the case, will come justice.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Mark Regev, the spokesperson for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was responding to the bombing of the U.N. school in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
MARK REGEV: First of all, it’s not clear to us that it was Israeli fire, even Israeli errant fire, that hit that U.N. facility. What we do know is that terrorists, Hamas terrorists, were shooting at our forces, and there was a firefight, and they were shooting at us from the immediate vicinity of that U.N. school. Now, if our forces are in the field and being shot at, right, it’s only natural that they would return fire to save their own lives.
AMY GOODMAN: Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev also responded to the U.N.’s finding that it was in fact Israeli shells which hit the school.
MARK REGEV: First of all, we’ll be interested to hear what they’ll say, and we’ll cooperate in investigations, if need be, because we’ll be totally transparent. If it was our fault, if it was errant Israeli fire, then we will of course come clean. In the past, we have admitted when we’ve made mistakes. But let’s be clear. Here, the secretary-general of the United Nations has been very clear. He said when terrorists put weapons or use a U.N. facility for their military purposes, they are responsible, because they are endangering the lives of everyone who uses that facility. And that was clear today, that our forces were taking fire from terrorists in the immediate vicinity of that school, therefore it’s Hamas who has turned this area into a war zone, and they bear responsibility.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the Israeli spokesperson, Mark Regev. Christopher Gunness of the United Nations, can you respond?
CHRISTOPHER GUNNESS: Well, here are some questions for Mr. Regev. Do you not think that the self-described most moral army in the world, if it was going to attack—I mean, he seems to be saying that there were terrorists there, so Israel deliberately attacked. I think that’s what I heard him say; I may be wrong. But if the most moral army in the world, as the Israeli army has called itself, feels that there’s going to be an attack in which people are going to be killed, women and children, children who slept at their parents’ side on the floor of a classroom in a U.N.-designated safe area, wouldn’t it be sensible to allow the principle of distinction to take hold and for combatants and noncombatants to be distinguished and for women and children civilians to be allowed to leave the combat zone? And what about the notion of proportionality, the fact that you’re attacking militants near an UNRWAcompound, and the risk is that you kill women and children in large numbers? Isn’t that something which the rules of war dictate that the Israeli army should be cognizant of?
The idea that because a few militants were near an UNRWA school somehow justifies an artillery shell hitting that school and killing children sleeping by the sides of their parents seems to me, at any rate, as a citizen of the world, not necessarily an expert in international law, completely unconscionable. And I think the very fact that we have seen the quite proper revulsion of the world, given the carnage that we saw, not just in Jabaliya, but last Thursday in Beit Hanoun, I think says something about the way that these arguments are stacking up. It’s fine for Israeli spokespeople to say these things, but let us not forget, Amy, that our compound in January 2009 was struck by white phosphorus with a direct hit, where hundreds of people had taken refuge. And we heard similar apologies, protestations, you know, all sorts of fine words from Israeli spokespeople, including Mr. Regev, about how heartbroken they were and how terrible this all was. And here we are five years later with exactly the same parties hitting directly U.N. safe areas which are full of civilians. And, you know, one might also ask Mr. Regev about the pinpoint nature of these strikes, because if it is that nearly two-thirds of these civilians are being struck in pinpoint strikes, one seriously has to wonder about the high technology of the Israeli army and indeed the methodology behind their targeting techniques.
AMY GOODMAN: Christopher Gunness, I want to thank you for being with us, spokesperson for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, known as UNRWA, speaking to us from Jerusalem
This isDemocracy Now!When we come back, a leading voice of U.S. Jewry, Henry Siegman, part two of our conversation with the former head of the American Jewish Congress. Stay with us.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
[Actually, WE start with part one, then move on to part two, ed.}


WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2014

Henry Siegman, Leading Voice of U.S. Jewry, on Gaza: "A Slaughter of Innocents"

Given his background, what American Jewish leader Henry Siegman has to say about Israel’s founding in 1948 through the current assault on Gaza may surprise you. From 1978 to 1994, Siegman served as executive director of the American Jewish Congress, long described as one of the nation’s "big three" Jewish organizations along with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Born in Germany three years before the Nazis came to power in 1933, Siegman’s family eventually moved to the United States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement that pushed for the creation of a Jewish state. In New York, Siegman studied the religion and was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vodaas, later becoming head of the Synagogue Council of America. After his time at the American Jewish Congress, Siegman became a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He now serves as president of the U.S./Middle East Project. In the first of our two-part interview, Siegman discusses the assault on Gaza, the myths surrounding Israel’s founding in 1948, and his own background as a German-Jewish refugee who fled Nazi occupation to later become a leading American Jewish voice and now vocal critic of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories.
"When one thinks that this is what is necessary for Israel to survive, that the Zionist dream is based on the repeated slaughter of innocents on a scale that we’re watching these days on television, that is really a profound, profound crisis — and should be a profound crisis in the thinking of all of us who were committed to the establishment of the state and to its success," Siegman says. Responding to Israel’s U.S.-backed claim that its assault on Gaza is necessary because no country would tolerate the rocket fire from militants in Gaza, Siegman says: "What undermines this principle is that no country and no people would live the way that Gazans have been made to live. … The question of the morality of Israel’s action depends, in the first instance, on the question, couldn’t Israel be doing something [to prevent] this disaster that is playing out now, in terms of the destruction of human life? Couldn’t they have done something that did not require that cost? And the answer is, sure, they could have ended the occupation."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: As we continue our coverage of the Israeli offensive in Gaza, we spend the rest of the hour with Henry Siegman, the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress, long described as one of the nation’s "big three" Jewish organizations along with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Henry Siegman was born in 1930 in Frankfurt, Germany. Three years later, the Nazis came to power. After fleeing Nazi troops in Belgium, his family eventually moved to the United States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement, pushing for the creation of a Jewish state. In New York, Henry Siegman studied and was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vodaas. He later became head of the Synagogue Council of America. After his time at the American Jewish Congress, Siegman became a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He now serves as president of the U.S./Middle East Project.
AMY GOODMAN: Over the years, Henry Siegman has become a vocal critic of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories and has urged Isral to engage with Hamas. He has called the Palestinian struggle for a state, quote, "the mirror image of the Zionist movement" that led to the founding of Israel in 1948. He recently wrote apiece for Politico headlined "Israel Provoked This War." Nermeen Shaikh and I sat down with him on Tuesday. I started by asking Henry Siegman if he could characterize the situation in Gaza at the moment.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, it’s disastrous. It’s disastrous, both in political terms, which is to say the situation cannot conceivably, certainly in the short run, lead to any positive results, to an improvement in the lives of either Israelis or Palestinians, and of course it’s disastrous in humanitarian terms, the kind of slaughter that’s taking place there. When one thinks that this is what is necessary for Israel to survive, that the Zionist dream is based on the slaughter of—repeated slaughter of innocents on a scale that we’re watching these days on television, that is really a profound, profound crisis—and should be a profound crisis—in the thinking of all of us who were committed to the establishment of the state and to its success. It leads one virtually to a whole rethinking of this historical phenomenon.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: What do you believe—Mr. Siegman, what do you believe the objectives of Israel are in this present assault on Gaza?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, they have several objectives, although I’m not sure that each of them is specifically responsible for the carnage we’re seeing now. It has what seems on the surface a justifiable objective of ending these attacks, the rockets that come from Gaza and are aimed—it’s hard to say they’re aimed at civilians, because they never seem to land anywhere that causes serious damage, but they could and would have, if not for luck. So, on the face of it, Israel has a right to do what it’s doing now, and, of course, it’s been affirmed by even president of the United States, repeatedly, that no country would agree to live with that kind of a threat repeatedly hanging over it.
But what he doesn’t add, and what perverts this principle, undermines the principle, is that no country and no people would live the way Gazans have been made to live. And consequently, this moral equation which puts Israel on top as the victim that has to act to prevent its situation from continuing that way, and the Palestinians in Gaza, or Hamas, the organization responsible for Gaza, who are the attackers, our media rarely ever points out that these are people who have a right to live a decent, normal life, too. And they, too, must think, "What can we do to put an end to this?"
And this is why in the Politico article that you mentioned, I pointed out the question of the morality of Israel’s action depends, in the first instance, on the question: Couldn’t Israel be doing something in preventing this disaster that is playing out now, in terms of the destruction of human lives? Couldn’t they have done something that didn’t require that cost? And the answer is: Sure, that they could have ended the occupation, with results—whatever the risks are, they certainly aren’t greater than the price being paid now for Israel’s effort to continue and sustain permanently their relationship to the Palestinians.
AMY GOODMAN: When you say that Israel could end the violence by ending the occupation, Israel says it does not occupy Gaza, that it left years ago. I wanted to play a clip for you from MSNBC. It was last week, and the host, Joy Reid, was interviewing the Israeli spokesperson, Mark Regev.
MARK REGEV: Listen, if you’ll allow me to, I want to take issue with one important word you said. You said Israel is the occupying authority. You’re forgetting Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip. We took down all the settlements, and the settlers who didn’t want to leave, we forced them to leave. We pulled back to the 1967 international frontier. There is no Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip. We haven’t been there for some eight years.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, can you respond?
HENRY SIEGMAN: OK, yeah. That is of course utter nonsense, and for several reasons. First of all, Gaza is controlled completely, like the West Bank, because it is totally surrounded by Israel. Israel could not be imposing the kind of chokehold it has on Gaza if it were not surrounding, if its military were not surrounding Gaza, and not just on the territory, but also on the air, on the sea. No one there can make a move without coming into contact with the Israeli IDF, you know, outside this imprisoned area where Gazans live. So, there’s no one I have encountered, who is involved with international law, who’s ever suggested to me that in international law Gaza is not considered occupied. So that’s sheer nonsense.
But there’s another point triggered by your question to me, and this is the propaganda machine, and these official spokespeople will always tell you, "Take a look at what kind of people these are. Here we turned over Gaza to them. And you’d think they would invest their energies in building up the area, making it a model government and model economy. Instead, they’re working on rockets." The implication here is that they, in effect, offered Palestinians a mini state, and they didn’t take advantage of it, so the issue isn’t really Palestinian statehood. That is the purpose of this kind of critique.
And I have always asked myself, and this has a great deal to do with my own changing views about the policies of governments, not about the Jewish state qua Jewish state, but of the policies pursued by Israeli governments and supported—you know, they say Israel is a model democracy in the Middle East, so you must assume—the public has to assume some responsibility for what the government does, because they put governments in place. So, the question I ask myself: What if the situation were reversed? You know, there is a Talmudic saying inPirkei Avot, The Ethics of the Fathers: "Al tadin et chavercha ad shetagiah lemekomo,""Don’t judge your neighbor until you can imagine yourself in his place." So, my first question when I deal with any issue related to the Israeli-Palestinian issue: What if we were in their place?
What if the situation were reversed, and the Jewish population were locked into, were told, "Here, you have less than 2 percent of Palestine, so now behave. No more resistance. And let us deal with the rest"? Is there any Jew who would have said this is a reasonable proposition, that we cease our resistance, we cease our effort to establish a Jewish state, at least on one-half of Palestine, which is authorized by the U.N.? Nobody would agree to that. They would say this is absurd. So the expectations that Palestinians—and I’m speaking now about the resistance as a concept; I’m not talking about rockets, whether they were justified or not. They’re not. I think that sending rockets that are going to kill civilians is a crime. But for Palestinians to try, in any way they can, to end this state of affair—and to expect of them to end their struggle and just focus on less than 2 percent to build a country is absurd. That is part of—that’s propaganda, but it’s not a discussion of either politics or morality.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: One of the things that’s repeated most often is, the problem with the Palestinian unity government is, of course, that Hamas is now part of it, and Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and also by the United States. I’d just like to read you a short quote from an article that you wrote in 2009 in the London Review of Books. You said, "Hamas is no more a 'terror organisation' ... than the Zionist movement was during its struggle for a Jewish homeland. In the late 1930s and 1940s, parties within the Zionist movement resorted to terrorist activities for strategic reasons." Could you elaborate on that and what you see as the parallels between the two?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, I’m glad I said that. In fact, I repeated it in a letter to The New York Times the other day, a week or two ago. The fact is that Israel had, pre-state—in its pre-state stage, several terrorist groups that did exactly what Hamas does today. I don’t mean they sent rockets, but they killed innocent people. And they did that in an even more targeted way than these rockets do. Benny Morris published a book that is considered the Bible on that particular period, the war of—
AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli historian.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Sorry?
AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli historian, Benny Morris.
HENRY SIEGMAN: The Israeli historian, right, then in the bookRighteous Victims, in which he said—I recall, when I read it, I was shocked—in which he—particularly in his most recently updated book, which was based on some new information that the Israel’s Defense—the IDF finally had to open up and publish, that Israeli generals received direct instructions from Ben-Gurion during the War of Independence to kill civilians, or line them up against the wall and shoot them, in order to help to encourage the exodus, that in fact resulted, of 700,000 Palestinians, who were driven out of their—left their homes, and their towns and villages were destroyed. This was terror, even within not just the terrorist groups, the pre-state terrorists, but this is within the military, the Israeli military, that fought the War of Independence. And in this recent book, that has received so much public attention by Ari—you know, My Promised Land.
AMY GOODMAN: Shavit.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Ari Shavit. He describes several such incidents, too. And incidentally, one of the people who—according to Benny Morris, one of the people who received these orders—and they were oral orders, but he, in his book, describes why he believes that these orders were given, were given to none other than Rabin, who was not a general then, but he—and that he executed these orders.
AMY GOODMAN: Meaning?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Meaning?
AMY GOODMAN: What did it mean that he executed these orders, Rabin?
HENRY SIEGMAN: That he executed civilians. And the rationale given for this when Shavit, some years ago, had an interview with Benny Morris and said to him, "My God, you are saying that there was deliberate ethnic cleansing here?" And Morris said, "Yes, there was." And he says, "And you justify it?" And he said, "Yes, because otherwise there would not have been a state." And Shavit did not follow up. And that was one of my turning points myself, when I saw that. He would not follow up and say, "Well, if that is a justification, the struggle for statehood, why can’t Palestinians do that? What’s wrong with Hamas? Why are they demonized if they do what we did?"
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the Israeli prime minister earlier this month, Benjamin Netanyahu, vowing to punish those responsible for the killing of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, the Palestinian teen who was burned alive following the murders of three Israeli teens. But in doing so, Netanyahu drew a distinction between Israel and its neighbors in how it deals with, quote, "murderers."
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I know that in our society, the society of Israel, there is no place for such murderers. And that’s the difference between us and our neighbors. They consider murderers to be heroes. They name public squares after them. We don’t. We condemn them, and we put them on trial, and we’ll put them in prison.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the difference. Henry Siegman, can you respond?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, the only difference I can think of is that in Israel they made the heads of the two major pre-state terrorist groups prime ministers. So this distinction he’s drawing is simply false; it’s not true. The heads of the two terrorist groups, which incidentally, again, going back to Benny Morris, in his book, Righteous Victims, he writes, in this pre-state account, that the targeting of civilians was started by the Jewish terrorist groups, and the Arab—and the Arab groups followed.
AMY GOODMAN: You’re talking about Irgun and the Stern Gang.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, yes. And as you know, both the head of the Irgun and both the head of the Stern Gang—I’m talking about Begin and Shamir—became prime ministers of the state of Israel. And contrary to Netanyahu, public highways and streets are named after them.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, former head of the American Jewish Congress. We’ll continue our conversation with him in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report, as we continue our conversation with Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, former head of the American Jewish Congress. I interviewed him Tuesday with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: I’d like to turn, Henry Siegman, to Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, who was speaking to Charlie Rose ofPBS. He said Hamas was willing to coexist with Jews but said it would not live, quote, "with a state of occupiers."
KHALED MESHAAL: [translated] I am ready to coexist with the Jews, with the Christians, and with the Arabs and non-Arabs, and with those who agree with my ideas and also disagree with them; however, I do not coexist with the occupiers, with the settlers and those who put a siege on us.
CHARLIE ROSE: It’s one thing to say you want to coexist with the Jews. It’s another thing you want to coexist with the state of Israel. Do you want to coexist with the state of Israel? Do you want to represent—do you want to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?
KHALED MESHAAL: [translated] No. I said I do not want to live with a state of occupiers.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, speaking to Charlie Rose. Henry Siegman, could you respond to that, and specifically the claim made by Israelis repeatedly that they can’t negotiate with a political organization that refuses the state of Israel’s right to exist in its present form?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes. It so happens that in both international custom and international law, political parties, like Hamas, are not required or even ever asked to recognize states, whether they recognize a state or not. The question is whether the government of which they are a part and that makes policy and executes policy, whether that government is prepared to recognize other states. And this is true in the case of Israel, as well, the government of Israel, any government. I, incidentally, discussed this with Meshaal, not once, but several times, face to face, and asked him whether he would be part of a government that recognizes the state of Israel, and he says—and he said, "Yes, provided"—they had a proviso—he said, "provided that the Palestinian public approves that policy." And he repeated to me the fact that—he said, "You’re absolutely right." He says, "People ask us will we recognize the state of Israel, and will we affirm that it’s legitimately a Jewish state." He said, "No, we won’t do that. But we have never said that we will not serve in a government that has public support for that position, that we will not serve in such a government."
But a more important point to be made here—and this is why these distinctions are so dishonest—the state of Israel does not recognize a Palestinian state, which is to say there are parties in Netanyahu’s government—very important parties, not marginal parties—including his own, the Likud, that to this day has an official platform that does not recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state anywhere in Palestine. And, of course, you have Naftali Bennett’s party, the HaBayit HaYehudi, which says this openly, that there will never be a state, a Palestinian state, anywhere in Palestine. Why hasn’t our government or anyone said, "Like Hamas, if you have parties like that in your government, you are not a peace partner, and you are a terrorist group, if in fact you use violence to implement your policy, as Hamas does"? So the hypocrisy in the discussion that is taking place publicly is just mind-boggling.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, you’re the head, the former head, of one of the leading Jewish organizations, the American Jewish Congress.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Two of them, also of the Synagogue Council of America.
AMY GOODMAN: So, these are major establishment Jewish organizations. You said you went to see Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas, not once, but several times to meet with him. The U.S. government calls Hamas a terrorist organization. They will not communicate with them. They communicate with them through other parties, through other countries, to talk to them. Talk about your decision to meet with Khaled Meshaal, where you met with him, and the significance of your conversations.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, first of all, it should be noted that the U.S. has no such policy of not meeting with terrorist organizations. It has a policy of not meeting with Hamas. That’s quite different. We’re very happy to meet with the Taliban and to negotiate with them. And they cut off hands and heads of people, and they kill girls who go to school. And that didn’t prevent the United States from having negotiations with the Taliban, so that’s nonsense that we don’t talk to terrorist organizations. We talk to enemies if we want to cease the slaughter, and we’re happy to do so and to try to reach an agreement that puts an end to it. And why Hamas should be the exception, again, I find dishonest. And the only reason that we do that is in response to the pressures from AIPAC and, of course, Israel’s position. The largest caucus, parliamentary caucus, in Israel’s Knesset is called the caucus of Eretz Yisrael HaShlema, which the Likud leads.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain that in English, "the land of Israel."
HENRY SIEGMAN: An "eretz," in English—in English, it means the whole land of Israel. This is a parliamentary caucus, the largest caucus in the Knesset, which is totally dedicated to not permit any government to establish a Palestinian state anywhere in the land of Israel, headed by Likud, senior Likud members of Knesset, and headed—a party that is headed by the prime minister of Israel. And what boggles the imagination is that no one talks about this, no one points this out, and no one says, "How can you take these positions via Hamas if this is exactly what is going on within your own government that you are heading?"
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Henry Siegman, as you are far more familiar than most, the argument made by Israel and supporters of Israel is that what might be construed as a disproportionate response by Israel to Hamas has to do with the historical experience of the persecution of the Jews and, of course, the Holocaust. So how do you respond to those kinds of claims?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, I don’t accept that at all, because the lesson from the persecutions would seem to me—and certainly if you follow Jewish tradition, the lesson of those persecutions, we have always said, until the state of Israel came into being, is that you do not treat people in that kind of an inhumane and cruel way. And the hope always was that Israel would be a model democracy, but not just a democracy, but a state that would practice Jewish values, in terms of its humanitarian approach to these issues, its pursuit of justice and so on.
I have always felt that, for me, the Holocaust experience, which was important to me, since I lived two years under Nazi occupation, most of it running from place to place and in hiding—I always thought that the important lesson of the Holocaust is not that there is evil, that there are evil people in this world who could do the most unimaginable, unimaginably cruel things. That was not the great lesson of the Holocaust. The great lesson of the Holocaust is that decent, cultured people, people we would otherwise consider good people, can allow such evil to prevail, that the German public—these were not monsters, but it was OK with them that the Nazi machine did what it did. Now I draw no comparisons between the Nazi machine and Israeli policy. And what I resent most deeply is when people say, "How dare you invoke the Nazi experience?" The point isn’t, you know, what exactly they did, but the point is the evidence that they gave that decent people can watch evil and do nothing about it. That is the most important lesson of the Holocaust, not the Hitlers and not the SS, but the public that allowed this to happen. And my deep disappointment is that the Israeli public, precisely because Israel is a democracy and cannot say, "We’re not responsible what our leaders do," that the public puts these people back into office again and again.
AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned your experience as a Holocaust survivor. Could you just go into it a little more deeply? You were born in 1930 in Germany. And talk about the rise of the Nazis and how your family escaped.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, I don’t consider myself a Holocaust survivor, in the sense that I was not in a concentration camp. But I lived under Nazi occupation. I was born in 1930, but the Nazis came to power in—I think in 1933. And shortly thereafter, we lived in Germany at the time. My parents lived in Germany, in Frankfurt. And they left. My father decided to give up a very successful business and to move to Belgium then, and on the assumption that Belgium was safe, that we would be escaping the Nazis. But in 1940, the Germans invaded Belgium, and they invaded France. That was in early 1940, I believe. And so, it’s a long story, but for the next—from that point on until February 1942, when we arrived, finally arrived in the United States.
And how my father pulled that off is a miracle; to this day, I don’t fully understand, because there were six children that he had to bring with him, and my mother, of course. We ran from place to place. First we were at Dunkirk, where the classic evacuation, memorable evacuation took place, and the French and the British soldiers withdrew to across the channel. We happened to find ourselves there at the time. And then we were sent back by the—when the Nazi troops finally caught up with us in Dunkirk, they sent us back to Antwerp. And then my father had connections with the police chief, because of his business interests in Antwerp before the Nazis came. He was tipped off the morning that we were supposed to be—the Gestapo was supposed to come to our house to take all of us away. And so we just picked up, and we managed to get to Paris. And from Paris, we crossed—we were smuggled across the border into occupied Vichy France, and we were there for about a year, again without proper papers and in hiding. Then we tried to cross into Spain. And we did, but when we arrived at the Spanish border, they finally closed the border and sent us back into France.
So, then we managed to get a boat to take us from Marseille to North Africa, where we were interned briefly in a camp in North Africa. And then the—what I believe was the last ship, a Portuguese, a neutral ship, taking refugees to the United States stopped in North Africa. We boarded that ship. And we were on the high seas for two months, because the Nazi subs were already busy sinking the ships that they encountered. So we had to go all the way around to avoid various Nazi submarine-infested areas.
So after two months on the high seas, we arrived in New York, where we were sent to Ellis Island, which was full of Bundists, who had been German Bundists, who were arrested and were being sent back to Germany. But as we walked into Ellis Island into that hallway, something I will never forget, "We’re in America at last!" And those Bundists were greeting each other in the hallway, "Heil Hitler!" So the "Heil Hitlers" that we were trying to escape in Europe was the first thing we encountered as we landed on Ellis Island.
AMY GOODMAN: And how did you end up becoming head of one of the country’s—or, as you said, country’s two major Jewish organizations? And what was your position on Zionism after World War II?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, my father was one of the leaders of European Zionism. He was the head of the Mizrachi in the religious Zionist movement, not just in Belgium, but in Western Europe. And the leaders, the heads, the founders of the Mizrachi—mayor of Berlin himself, Gold, many others—were guests in our house in Antwerp. And they used to take me on their knees and teach me Hebrew songs from Israel. So, I had—I was raised on mother’s milk, and I was an ardent—as a kid even, an ardent Zionist. I recall on the ship coming over, we were coming to America, and I was writing poetry and songs—I was 10 years old, 11 years old—about the blue sky of Palestine. In those days we referred to it as Palestina, Palestine.
And so, into adulthood, not until well after the ’67 War, when I came across—and I got to know Rabin and others, and I came across a discussion in which I was told by Israelis, by the Israeli people who I was talking to, government, senior government people, that they had an initiative from Sadat about peace and withdrawal and so on. And Rabin said, "But clearly, the Israeli public is not prepared for that now." And that hit me like a hammer. I always had this notion drilled into me that if only the Arabs were to reach out and be willing to live in peace with Israel, that would be the time of the Messiah. And the Messiah came, and the Israeli leadership said, "No, public opinion is not ready for that." And I wrote a piece then in Moment magazine—if you recall, it was published by Leonard Fein—and he made it a cover story, and the title was, "For the Sake of Zion, I Will Not Remain Silent." And that triggered my re-examination of things I had been told and what was going on on the ground.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Prior to that, your sense had always been that if the Arabs reached out, there would be two states: Palestine and Israel.
HENRY SIEGMAN: I had no doubt about that. I mean, that was, you know, just a given, that we are sharing. The resolution said, you know, two states. The resolution, which Israel—the partition resolution, which Israel invoked in its Declaration of Independence, planted, rooted its legitimacy in that—it cited the Palestinian—the partition plan. But when someone these days says, "But there’s a partition plan that said that the rest of it, that was not assigned to Israel, is the legitimate patrimony of the Palestinian people," the answer given is, "Ah, yeah, but they voted they would not accept it, and the partition plan was never officially adopted." Well, why are you quoting it then in your Declaration of Independence, if you consider it to be null and void and not—anyway.
AMY GOODMAN: And the response of—or the slogan, the idea that was put forward so much in the founding of the state of Israel: Palestine is a land without people for a people without land?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, that was the common understanding and referred to repeatedly in Ari Shavit’s book and others, that the Zionist movement, at its very birth, was founded on an untruth, on a myth, that Palestine was a country without a people. And as he says, obviously—and he recognizes in his book that it was a lie. And therefore, from the very beginning, Zionism didn’t confront this profound moral dilemma that lay at its very heart. How do you deal with that reality? And as a consequence of that, one of the ways in which they dealt with it was to see to the expulsion of 700,000 people from their cities, from their towns and villages, and the destruction of all of them, which, to his credit, Ari Shavit writes about very painfully and honestly.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project. He’s the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress as well as the Synagogue Council of America. He recently wrote a piece for Politico headlined "Israel Provoked This War." We’ll link to it at democracynow.org. Tune in tomorrow for part two of our conversation with Henry Siegman, where he talks about U.S. support for Israel and U.S. media coverage.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2014

U.S. Jewish Leader Henry Siegman to Israel: Stop Killing Palestinians and End the Occupation

In the second part of our interview, Henry Siegman, the former head of the American Jewish Congress and the Synagogue Council of America, discusses the assault on Gaza, Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israel, and how peace could be attainable if the Obama administration reverse decades-long support for the Israeli occupation. Born in 1930 in Germany, Siegman fled as the Nazis came to power, eventually arriving in the United States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement pushing for the creation of a Jewish state. In New York, Siegman studied and was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vodaas. He now serves as president of the U.S./Middle East Project. Commenting on the Hamas charter that calls for Israel’s destruction, Siegman says: "The difference between Hamas and Israel is that Israel is actually implementing [a destruction policy] — actually preventing a Palestinian state which doesn’t exist. Millions of Palestinians live in this subservient position without rights, without security, without hope, and without a future." Commenting on Israeli justifications for killing Palestinians in the name of self-defense from 1948 through today, Siegman responds: "If you don’t want to kill Palestinians, if that’s what pains you so much, you don’t have to kill them. You can give them their rights, and you can end the occupation. And to put the blame for the occupation and for the killing of innocents that we are seeing in Gaza now on the Palestinians — why? Because they want a state of their own? They want what Jews wanted and achieved? This is a great moral insult."
Click here to watch part 1 of this interview.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. As we continue our coverage of the Israeli offensive on Gaza, we turn to part two of our conversation with Henry Siegman, the former head of the American Jewish Congress and the Synagogue Council of America. What he says about the future of Israel and the ongoing assault on Gaza may surprise you. Siegman was born in 1930 in Frankfurt, Germany. His family fled Germany as the Nazis came to power. He eventually arrived in the United States in 1942. His father was a leader of European Zionism, pushing for the creation of a Jewish state. In New York, Henry Siegman studied and was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vodaas. He now serves as president of the U.S./Middle East Project. He recently wrote a piece for Politico headlined "Israel Provoked This War: It’s Up to President Obama to Stop It."
Democracy Now!'s Nermeen Shaikh and I sat down with Henry Siegman on Tuesday. I asked him about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that Israel is just responding to the thousands of rockets that Hamas and other groups are firing from Gaza.
HENRY SIEGMAN: My response is that they wouldn’t be firing those rockets if you weren’t out—if you didn’t have an occupation in place. And one of the reasons you say you do not have an occupation in place is because you really don’t have a united partner, Palestinian partner, to make peace with, and when Palestinians seek to establish that kind of a government, which they just recently did, bringing Hamas into the governmental structure, Palestinian governmental structure, that is headed by Abbas, you seek to destroy that. You won’t recognize it. And this is why I say there are several reasons for the Israeli action. A primary one is to prevent this new government from actually succeeding. It’s an attempt to break up the new unity government set up by the Palestinians.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Why would they do that? Why would they want to do that?
HENRY SIEGMAN: They want to do that, for the first time—for years, I have been suggesting and arguing that they want to do that because they are intent on preventing the development of a Palestinian state. To put it bluntly, they want all of it. They want all of Palestine.
Now, this is something that Netanyahu said openly and without any reservations when he was not in government. He wrote about it, published a book about it, his opposition to a Palestinian state, that Israel couldn’t allow that. The difference between the time that he—and he, incidentally, opposed not just Palestinian statehood. He opposed peace agreements with Egypt. He opposed peace agreements with Jordan. Any positive step towards a stabilization and a more peaceful region, Netanyahu has been on record as opposing.
And when he came into office as prime minister, he understood that it is not a smart thing to say that Israel’s policy is to maintain the occupation permanently. So, the only difference between his positions in the past and the position now is that he pretends that he really would like to see a two-state solution, which, as you know, is the affirmation he made in his so-called Bar-Ilan speech several years ago. And some naive people said, "Ah, you know, redemption is at hand," when, to his own people, he winked and made clear, and as I just read recently—I didn’t know that—that it’s on record that his father said, "Of course he didn’t mean it. He will attach conditions that will make it impossible." But that was his tactic. His tactic was to say, "We are all in favor of it, but if only we had a Palestinian partner."
Now, in fact, they’ve had a Palestinian partner that’s been willing and able—they set up institutions that the World Bank has said are more effective than most states that are members of the U.N. today. And that, of course, made no difference, and continued to say we do not have a partner, because you have nearly two million Palestinians in Gaza who are not represented. So the unity government became a threat to that tactic of pretending to be in support of a Palestinian state.
AMY GOODMAN: In a response to the piece that you wrote forPolitico that was headlined "Israel Provoked This War," the Anti-Defamation League writes, quote, "Hamas has a charter which they live up to every day calling for Israel’s destruction. Hamas has used the last two years of relative quiet to build up an arsenal of rockets whose sole purpose is to attack Israel. Hamas has built a huge network of tunnels leading into Israel with the purpose of murdering large numbers of Israelis and seizing hostages." Henry Siegman, can you respond?
HENRY SIEGMAN: What I would point out to my former friend Abe Foxman of the ADL is that, too, is Israel’s charter, or at least the policy of this government and of many previous governments, which is to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state. And they have built up their army and their armaments to implement that policy. And the difference between Hamas and the state of Israel is that the state of Israel is actually doing it. They’re actually implementing it, and they’re actually preventing a Palestinian state, which doesn’t exist. And millions of Palestinians live in this subservient position without rights and without security, without hope and without a future. That’s not the state of—the state of Israel is a very successful state, and happily Jews live there with a thriving economy and with an army whose main purpose is preventing that Palestinian state from coming into being. That’s their mandate.
But sadly and shockingly, they can stand by, even though international law says if you’re occupying people from outside of your country, you have a responsibility to protect them. I mean, the responsibility to protect is the people you are occupying. The soldiers who are there, ostensibly to implement that mandate, will watch settler violence when it occurs when they attack Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and they won’t do a thing to prevent it. They won’t intervene to protect the people they are supposed to protect, and they will tell you, "That’s not our job. Our job is to protect the Jews."
NERMEEN SHAIKH: On the question of the support, the successive U.S. administrations supporting Israel, I’d like to again quote from something you said in a 2002 New York Times interview with Chris Hedges. You said, "The support for Israel," in the United States, "fills a spiritual vacuum. If you do not support the government of Israel then your Jewishness, not your political judgment, is in question." So could you explain what you mean by that and what the implications of that have been, in terms of U.S. governments supporting Israeli government policy?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, what I meant by that, and that was an interview quite a while ago—
NERMEEN SHAIKH: 2002, yes.
HENRY SIEGMAN: I see, OK, which is not all that long ago, for me anyway. I meant by that something quite simple, that for many American Jews—and, I suspect, for most American Jews—Israel has become the content of their Jewish religious identification. It has very little other content. I rarely have been at a Shabbat service where a rabbi gives a sermon where Israel isn’t a subject of the sermon. And typically, they are—the sermons are not in the spirit of an Isaiah, you know, who says, "My god, is this what God wants from you? Your hands are bloody; they’re filled with blood. But he doesn’t want your fast. He doesn’t want—he despises the sacrifices and your prayers. What he wants is to feed, to feed the hungry, to pursue justice and so on." But that’s not what you hear from rabbis in the synagogues in this country. So, what I meant by that is that there’s much more to Judaism and to the meaning that you give to your Jewish identity than support for the likes of Netanyahu.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And Henry Siegman, what do you think the Obama administration has done since his first administration? And what do you think he ought to be doing differently, on the question of Israel-Palestine and, in particular, his response to this most recent military assault on Gaza?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Look, I have written about this for years now. It’s not all that complicated. It is quite clear that, left to its own devices, if Israel—if the United States says to the Palestinians, "Hey, you guys have got to talk not to us; you’ve got to talk to the Palestinians—to the Israelis, and you have to come to an understanding that’s how peace is made, but we can’t interfere. You know, we cannot tell Israel what to do"—left to their own devices, there will never be a Palestinian state. And the question is—I have very serious doubts that we have not gone beyond the point where a Palestinian state is possible. The purpose of the settlement movement was to make it impossible. And I believe they have succeeded: That project has achieved its goal.
AMY GOODMAN: The Jewish settlements.
HENRY SIEGMAN: The Jewish settlers have achieved the irreversibility of the settlement movement, in terms of the vast infrastructure that has been put in place. So, even if there were a leftist government, so-called leftist government, that came to power, it would not be able to do it, because of the upheaval that would be necessary to create such a state.
There is only one thing—as far as I’m concerned, there are only two things that could happen that could still, perhaps, produce a Palestinian state. The first one is for the—because the United States remains absolutely essential in terms of Israel’s security, to its continued success and survival. If at some point the United States were to say, "You have now reached a point—we have been your biggest supporters. We have been with you through thick and thin. And we have based—we have treated you"—you know, a lot of people say, criticizing the U.S. and the international community, that we have double standards, that we expect things of Israel that we don’t expect of the rest of the world. We do have double standards, but it works the other way around: We grant Israel privileges and tolerate behavior that we would not in other allies. We may say there’s nothing we can do to change that, but we don’t give them billions of dollars. And we don’t go to the U.N., at the Security Council, to veto when the international—efforts by the United Nations to prevent that bad behavior. So we have double standards, but it works the other way. But if the United States were to say to Israel, "It’s our common values that underlie this very special relationship we have with you and these privileges that we have extended to you, but this can’t go on. We can’t do that when those values are being undermined. The values—what you are doing today contradicts American values. We are a democratic country, and we cannot be seen as aiding and abetting this oppression and permanent disenfranchisement of an entire people. So, you’re on your own." The issue is not America sending planes and missiles to bomb Tel Aviv as punishment; the issue is America removing itself from being a collaborator in the policies and a facilitator, making it easy and providing the tools for Israel to do that. So, if at some point the United States were to say what is said in Hebrew, ad kan, you know, "So far, but no further. We can’t—this is not what we can do. You want to do it? You’re on your own," that would change—that could still change the situation, because the one thing Israelis do not want to do is have the country live in a world where America is not there to have their back.
And the other possibility, which I have also written about, is for Palestinians to say, "OK, you won. You didn’t want us to have a state. We see that you’ve won. You have all of it." So our struggle is no longer to push the border to—to maintain a '67 border, where nobody is going to come to their help, because borderlines—international opinion doesn't mobilize around those issues. But this is a struggle against what looks and smells like apartheid—we want citizenship, we want full rights in all of Palestine—and make that the struggle. If Palestinians were to undertake that kind of a struggle in a credible way, where the Israeli public would see that they really mean it and they are going to fight for that in a nonviolent way, not by sending rockets, for citizenship, I am convinced—and I’ve seen no polls that contradict that belief—that they would say to their government, "Wait a minute, that is unacceptable, in fact, for us, and we cannot allow that. We don’t want a majority Arab population here." I’ve talked to Palestinian leadership and urged them to move in that direction. There is now a growing movement among younger Palestinians in that direction. And that, I hope, may yet happen. Now, it has to be a serious movement. It can’t just be a trick to get another state, but only if it is serious, where they are ready to accept citizenship and fight for it in a single state of all of Palestine, is it possible for the Israeli public to say, "This we cannot want, too, and we have to have a government that will accept the two states."
AMY GOODMAN: Why would Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has said he supports a two-state solution, create a situation that makes it virtually impossible, since it leads to this second possibility, which is a one-state solution, to the possibility that he does not want, which would be a majority Arab country?
HENRY SIEGMAN: He obviously believes that a one-state—well, I said earlier in our conversation that he never meant—when he said in his Bar-Ilan speech that he embraces a two-state, that was totally contrived. It was dishonest. Or, in simple English, he lied. And I appreciated the fact that several weeks ago, two weeks ago, he had a press conference in which he said—he didn’t say, "I lied," but he said, "There will never be a truly sovereign Palestinian state anywhere in Palestine." So, it’s quite clear now, and one of his friends, the former editor of The Jerusalem Post, who now edits The Times of Israel, had this big headline: "Finally, Now We Know It." We know he never meant it. He didn’t say this critically; he said this positively. "Finally, he’s back in the fold, and we know he will never allow a sovereign Palestinian state." Now, what will he do with a majority Arab population? He will do what the head of HaBayit HaYehudi, Bennett, has been advocating and proposed.
AMY GOODMAN: That means Jewish Home party in Israel.
HENRY SIEGMAN: That means the Jewish Home, and the Jewish Home meaning everywhere. And what he has said is that we’ll solve this problem of a potential apartheid in Israel in the following way: We will allow certain enclaves where there are heavy population—heavily populated by Palestinians, in certain parts of the West Bank, and those enclaves will be surrounded by our military. In other words, a bunch of Gazas; there will be several Gazas. Gaza, of course, will be shed or will become one of those enclaves, so they’re not part of the population of Israel. All the rest of Israel—the Jordan Valley, Area C, all of Area C, which is over 60 percent of the West Bank—will be annexed unilaterally by Israel. So, we will have shed two million Palestinians from Gaza. We will have shed another million and a half that live in the cities and in the more populated urban areas, in those enclaves—in those, essentially, bantustans. And the rest, that there are—what did he say? There are 50,000 Palestinians who live in Area C. We will make them citizens, and voila, apartheid is solved. That is—I believed that for the longest time, but that is the plan of Bibi Netanyahu. He may have to settle for less than 60 percent of the West Bank, but essentially he thinks he can solve this problem, this demographic bomb, as it’s been described, in this manner.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: You’ve also expressed in an interview in 2012 with The Jewish Daily Forward a concern that if Israel continues on its present path, its path in 2012, which I think it’s safe to say it continues today, that Israel will not be able to exist even for another 50 years. Could you explain what you mean by that? Why couldn’t it exist in the form that you’ve just described, for instance?
HENRY SIEGMAN: In which form?
NERMEEN SHAIKH: What you were saying earlier about the way in which the—
HENRY SIEGMAN: You mean in Bennett’s form?
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well—
HENRY SIEGMAN: Well, it certainly would not be existing as a Jewish state, and neither as a democratic state or a Jewish state.
AMY GOODMAN: Because?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Because a country that creates—for the same reason that South Africa could not claim it is a democratic state, because it has a bunch of bantustans.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see Israel as an apartheid state?
HENRY SIEGMAN: If they were to implement Bennett’s plan, absolutely. I don’t know if technically this is apartheid, but it certainly would not be a democratic state. It would lose its right to call itself a democracy.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, I wanted to ask you about media coverage of the conflict right now in Gaza. In a comment to close theCBS show Face the Nation on Sunday, the host, Bob Schieffer, suggested Hamas forces Israel to kill Palestinian children.
BOB SCHIEFFER: In the Middle East, the Palestinian people find themselves in the grip of a terrorist group that is embarked on a strategy to get its own children killed in order to build sympathy for its cause—a strategy that might actually be working, at least in some quarters. Last week I found a quote of many years ago by Golda Meir, one of Israel’s early leaders, which might have been said yesterday: "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children," she said, "but we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children."
AMY GOODMAN: That was the host, the journalist Bob Schieffer, onFace the Nation. You knew Prime Minister Golda Meir.
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes, I did. I wasn’t a friend of hers, but I knew her, and I heard her when she made that statement. And I thought then, and think now, that it is an embarrassingly hypocritical statement. This statement was made by a woman who also said "Palestinians? There are no Palestinians! I am a Palestinian." If you don’t want to kill Palestinians, if that’s what pains you so much, you don’t have to kill them. You can give them their rights, and you can end the occupation. And to put the blame for the occupation and for the killing of innocents that we are seeing in Gaza now on the Palestinians—why? Because they want a state of their own? They want what Jews wanted and achieved? I find that, to put it mildly, less than admirable. There is something deeply hypocritical about that original statement and about repeating it on the air over here as a great moral insight.
AMY GOODMAN: Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, former head of the American Jewish Congress and the Synagogue Council of America, recently wrote a piece for Politico headlined "Israel Provoked This War." Visit democracynow.org for part one of our conversation with Henry Siegman.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

-->

Israel the schnorrer

$
0
0



THE ABSURD TIMES



 

Above: Featured and honorable guest.

 

What you can do, above;
 
Illustrations: Some illustrations from Latuff.



We did our best to publish a title "Gaza and Social Media," but the load on the site is simply too great for that.  No matter, if you are on Twitter, all you need to do is type #Gazaunderattack and you will see the images too graphic for our media.  Also some information not designed for the American public.

We do, however, have a discussion of what will happen with this cease-fire and a clear statement of what motivated the slaughter in the first place.   The first person is Jewish, but hunted down by such b***** as Alan Derschowitz.  The second is a scientist with serious credentials who know what HE is talking about, even if our "leader" do not.

Incidentally, I heard that former President Jimmie Carter suggests that Hamas be recognized formally.  I have no real source.


TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2014

Gaza Ceasefire: After 1,800+ Dead, What Led Israel to Stop the Assault — and What Comes Next?

After a nearly month-long assault that left at least 1,865 Palestinians dead, Israel has pulled its ground forces from the Gaza Strip under the 72-hour ceasefire that went into effect earlier today. Israeli and Palestinian factions have agreed to attend talks in Cairo on a longer-term agreement. Gaza officials say the vast majority of Palestinian victims were civilians in the Israeli offensive that began on July 8. Israel says 64 of its soldiers and three civilians have been killed. Palestinians are returning to homes and neighborhoods that have seen a massive amount of destruction. Nearly a quarter of Gaza’s 1.8 million residents were displaced during the fighting which destroyed more than 3,000 homes. The ceasefire was reached after international outrage over Palestinian civilian deaths peaked, with even Israel’s chief backer, the United States, criticizing recent Israeli shelling of United Nations shelters that killed scores of displaced Palestinians. To discuss the lead-up to the ceasefire and what to expect from the talks in Cairo, we are joined by author and scholar Norman Finkelstein.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARON MATÉ: Israel has pulled its ground forces from the Gaza Strip as a 72-hour ceasefire takes hold. In addition, Israeli and Palestinian factions have agreed to attend talks in Cairo on a longer-term agreement. Gaza officials say at least 1,865 Palestinians, most of them civilians, died during Israel’s offensive, which began on July 8th. Israel says 64 of its soldiers and three civilians have been killed. Nearly a quarter of Gaza’s 1.8 million resident were displaced during the assault, which destroyed more than 3,000 homes.
Earlier today, the Israeli military sent out a message reading, quote: "Mission accomplished: We have destroyed Hamas’ tunnels leading from Gaza into Israel. All of Israel is now safer." Palestinians coming home to their neighborhoods report massive amounts of destruction.
GAZA RESIDENT: [translated] I am destroyed. I’m shocked. I have heart problems, and then I saw our house. We were all shocked. We don’t know what to do. Look at our houses and our children. Everything is destroyed, four apartments. All my children are stranded in the schools. Where are we supposed to go?
AMY GOODMAN: In other developments, a prominent Foreign Office minister in Britain, Sayeeda Warsi, has resigned, saying Britain’s policy on the crisis in Gaza is, quote, "morally indefensible." In an interview with The Huffington Post, Warsi criticized Britain for pressuring Palestinian leadership not to seek justice at the International Criminal Court. On Monday, Human Rights Watch urged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to seek ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on and from Palestinian territory. The group detailed multiple examples of Israeli soldiers shooting and killing fleeing civilians in Gaza.
To talk more about Gaza, we’re joined now by Norman Finkelstein, author and scholar. His most recent books, Old Wine, Broken Bottle: Ari Shavit’s Promised Land and Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End.
So, Norm, the ceasefire has been announced. It’s holding, well, just hours into it. And there is, if it holds, going to be negotiations taking place. Talk about what has happened.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, the first thing is to have clarity about why there is a ceasefire. The last time I was on the program, I mentioned that Prime Minister Netanyahu, he basically operates under two constraints: the international constraint—namely, there are limits to the kinds of death and destruction he can inflict on Gaza—and then there’s the domestic constraint, which is Israeli society doesn’t tolerate a large number of combatant deaths.
He launched the ground invasion for reasons which—no point in going into now—and inflicted massive death and destruction on Gaza, where the main enabler was, of course, President Obama. Each day he came out, he or one of his spokespersons, and said, "Israel has the right to defend itself." Each time he said that, it was the green light to Israel that it can continue with its terror bombing of Gaza. That went on for day after day after day, schools, mosques, hospitals targeted. But then you reached a limit. The limit was when Israel started to target the U.N. shelters—targeted one shelter, there was outrage; targeted a second shelter, there was outrage. And now the pressure began to build up in the United Nations. This is a United Nations—these are U.N. shelters. And the pressure began to build up. It reached a boiling point with the third shelter. And then Ban Ki-moon, the comatose secretary-general of the United Nations and a U.S. puppet, even he was finally forced to say something, saying these are criminal acts. Obama was now cornered. He was looking ridiculous in the world. It was a scandal. Even the U.N. secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, was now calling it a criminal act. So finally Obama, the State Department said "unacceptable,""deplorable." And frankly, it’s exactly what happened in 1999 in Timor: The limits had been reached, Clinton said to the Indonesian army, "Time to end the massacre." And exactly happened now: Obama signaled to Netanyahu the terror bombing has to stop. So, Obama—excuse me, Netanyahu had reached the limit of international tolerance, which basically means the United States.
And then there was the domestic issue. Israel had launched a ground invasion ostensibly to stop the so-called rocket attacks, but then it turned into something different: the tunnels. Now, the tunnels had nothing to do with Israel. That’s totally ridiculous. Israel claims there were 12 tunnels that had passed through its border. There were many more tunnels between Gaza and Egypt. The first thing Sisi did when he came into power in Egypt was seal the tunnels. Did he have to destroy all of Gaza to seal the tunnels? Israel couldn’t have done the same thing—seal the tunnels on its side of the border, exactly what Sisi did in Egypt? What did the Hamas have? It had spoons. It had shovels. You’re telling me that Israel didn’t have the earth-moving equipment to build a wall that went deeper than the tunnels? It had nothing to do with the tunnels entering Israel.
The problem was, the tunnels in Gaza, it turned out, they had created a fairly sophisticated network of tunnels, incidentally—I know we’re not allowed to make these comparisons—not unlike the bunkers that were built in the Warsaw Ghetto—primitive, but effective—and the Hamas fighters were able to come out of the tunnels, and they inflicted a significant number of casualties on Israel. During Operation Cast Lead in 2008, '09, 10 Israeli combatants were killed, of which four were from friendly fire. This time it was about 65. Now, during the Lebanon War in 2006, about 120 Israeli combatants were killed, but that was against the Hezbollah, which is a formidable guerrilla army. So, half and more were killed in Gaza this time. So, Israel's aim was not to destroy the tunnels going into Israel. That’s ridiculous. What they wanted to do was destroy the tunnel system inside Gaza, because now an effective—not very effective, but effective—guerrilla force had been created. And Israel, every few years, has to—or less than few years, has to mow the lawn in Gaza. And so, they wanted to make sure the next time they mow the lawn—
AMY GOODMAN: Why do you say "mow the lawn"?
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, that’s the Israeli expression. You go in, and you kill a thousand people, destroy everything in sight, and Israel calls that "mowing the lawn." So every few years they have to go into Gaza and mow the lawn. They want to make sure next time they mow the lawn—because if you read the Israeli commentators, who are really a sick bunch of people, all of them are talking now about the next war. Every single commentator is talking about the next war. This one isn’t even over yet. But they want to make sure the next time they go in, there won’t be tunnels. So that was the real aim of the mission.
The problem was, they had reached a certain point in Gaza, and now, if they went further, they would have to enter what are called the built-up areas. And those are very densely populated. Remember, Gaza is six times as densely populated as Manhattan. So if they went into the densely populated areas, we would be talking about thousands and thousands of casualties. And Netanyahu knew the international community wouldn’t accept it, because when Israel goes into a place, it doesn’t want combatant casualties, so it blasts everything in sight. You go into densely populated areas and you blast everything in sight, well, then you’re talking about thousands and thousands of casualties.
The other problem was, these tunnels were actually not vulnerable to aerial bombing and artillery shells. So even if they destroyed everything in sight, the tunnels are still there, Hamas comes out, and significant Israeli casualties. So Netanyahu realized ground invasion is over. There’s no further they can go, because of the domestic Israeli constraint: They don’t tolerate combatant casualties. The international constraint kicked in when Obama said, "It’s over, folks. Have to stop. Killed too many U.N. people this time." And then the ceasefire was signed.
AARON MATÉ: So now we have these talks. The call for Israel is for Hamas to disarm. Hamas’s goal has been for a lifting of the blockade of Gaza. And, of course, they’re being held in Egypt. What do you expect to play out in these talks?
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, it’s pretty clear what’s going to happen. And as a matter of fact, already in mid-July I posted something on my website predicting what would happen, exactly what did happen. What’s going to happen now is, for domestic reasons, Netanyahu has to end the projectile attacks on Israel. Hamas says it won’t stop firing its projectiles, quote-unquote, "rockets," until and unless Israel lifts the blockade of Gaza. So what’s going to happen—and it’s exactly what I said, as I said, three weeks ago—what’s going to happen is they’re going to bring in the Palestinian Authority to control the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, lift the blockade partially because of that crossing; then, on the Israeli side, they’re already talking about huge amounts of international donor aid to rebuild Gaza. It’s really a kind of weird conflict. I mean, there are so many weirdnesses about this conflict. Israel blows everything up. Nobody even talks about Israel paying reparations. It’s just taken as a matter of fact that the international community rebuilds after Israel destroys. It’s just a schnorrer state, "schnorrer" being the Yiddish for a sponger. We destroy, they pay. Nobody even discusses the possibility maybe Israel should pay reparations for its death and destruction in Gaza. In any case—
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, Israel would say it was the thousands of Hamas rockets that were shot into Israel that they now feel that they have succeeded in preventing.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Look, there were no Hamas rockets fired into Israel. There were Hamas primitive projectiles fired into Israel. Anybody with a moment’s common sense knows it was impossible—and it’s already been documented by people like Mark Perry. Everyone with a moment’s common sense knows they couldn’t have been firing, quote-unquote, "rockets" into Israel, for an obvious reason. After July 2013 there was a coup in Egypt. The tunnels were sealed after 2013. On the Israeli side, there was a blockade. What could get into Gaza? No military equipment can get into Gaza. No ammunition can get into Gaza. They were firing—as somebody put it in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, they had a guidance system, what they were firing, said it was the equivalent of upgraded fireworks. Now, OK, you could say upgraded—it had no guidance system, but you could say, well, they had a payload, an explosive payload on the fireworks. Where is the evidence for it? Now, I—
AMY GOODMAN: In a moment we’re going to talk with physicist Ted Postol about the Iron Dome system and the rockets.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Yeah, look, I have a high regard for Theodore Postol. However, I don’t accept part of his analysis, because he says that what protected Israel from the Hamas projectiles was not Iron Dome, but, he says, a sophisticated bunker—a sophisticated shelter system and a warning system. But that doesn’t explain another fact: Then why hasn’t there been significant damage to civilian infrastructure? How many schools were destroyed by these rockets? How many hospitals were destroyed? How many government buildings? That can’t be explained by the civilian shelter system.
AMY GOODMAN: Norm Finkelstein, do you think the ceasefire will hold? Do you think talks will take place?
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Yeah, because at this point, basically what’s going to happen is it’s over. Obama said it’s over. The ground invasion had reached its limit. And now Netanyahu has the problem that he has to end the rocket—the projectile attacks on Israel. And the only way he can do that is he’s going to have to agree to some lifting of the blockade. So, at this point there’s nothing left that Netanyahu can do. He inflicted the death, the destruction—he mowed the lawn. And now what’s probably going to happen is they’re going to bring in the Palestinian Authority, there will be rebuilding of Gaza, they’ll attempt to disarm Hamas. And I think the finale, the last stage, the coup de grâce, is going to be that Kerry is going to dust off his peace initiative—namely, imposing on the Palestinians a surrender. With Hamas now neutered, Hamas disarmed, they’ll try to impose the Kerry peace initiative on the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority will happily agree. And then there will be, again, a September 1993, a big peace agreement signed, and all the people will celebrate peace.
AARON MATÉ: But someone could say, "Well, that’s great. The blockade’s lifted, so people in Gaza stop suffering. We have peace, and the rocket attacks from Gaza are over."
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, except for one thing: You didn’t have to kill 1,800 people. You didn’t have to level Gaza and reduce it to rubble to lift the blockade. The blockade is illegal. It’s immoral. Why did you have to wait ’til after to do what was demanded under international law before?
AMY GOODMAN: On that note, Norm Finkelstein, I want to thank you for being with us, author and scholar. His most books, Old Wine, Broken Bottle: Ari Shavit’s Promised Land and Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, physicist Ted Postol on the Iron Dome. President Obama has just signed off on a bill giving an additional $225 million in emergency funding for Israel to expand its arsenal of interceptor missiles. Stay with us.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2014

Iron Dome Boondoggle: Has Obama Just Signed a $225M Check for a Defective Israeli Missile Shield?

President Obama signed a bill on Monday granting an additional $225 million in emergency funding for Israel to replenish its arsenal of interceptor missiles for its Iron Dome air defense system. The emergency spending was approved unanimously by the Senate and by a 395-to-8 vote in the House. Amidst universal support of Iron Dome from politicians and the corporate media, one of the country’s leading missile experts, Theodore Postol, says there is no evidence that Iron Dome is actually working. Postol is well known within defense circles for exposing the failures of the Patriot missile system during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. "I have been privy to discussions with members of Congress who have oversight responsibilities, who have acknowledged in those discussions that they have no idea whether Iron Dome is working or not," says Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at MIT. "And I can also tell you that the U.S. government has not been given any information on the performance of Iron Dome."
Click here to watch Part 1 of this interview.
Image Credit: NatanFlayer

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARON MATÉ: On Monday, President Obama signed a bill granting an additional $225 million in emergency funding for Israel to replenish its arsenal of interceptor missiles for its Iron Dome defense system. The emergency spending was approved unanimously by the Senate and by a 395-to-8 vote in the House.
Well, amidst universal support from politicians and the corporate media, one of the nation’s leading missile experts says there is no evidence Iron Dome is actually working. Theodore Postol is well known within defense circles for exposing the failures of the Patriot missile system during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to part two of our conversation with the MITprofessor. Theodore Postol joined us on the show last week from Boston. He’s a professor of science, technology and national security at MIT. He recently wrote anarticle in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists headlined "The Evidence that Shows Iron Dome Is Not Working." I began by asking Professor Postol if he could compare the previous Israeli assault on Gaza, when there wasn’t any Iron Dome, to what’s happening now.
THEODORE POSTOL: These comparisons are a little tricky, because the defense system that’s saving so many—well, saving lives in Israel is the early warning and sheltering system. And the early warning system has been improved through the use of telephones. So, for example, if you’re in a city somewhere where the Israeli radars determine that an artillery rocket is heading in your direction, you will get an audible signal that says you need to take shelter. And then there’s a shelter system that’s been built in advance all over these areas of Israel, plus you would have a shelter in your home, if you are actually in your home. So all you would need is 10 seconds of warning or less to get in a shelter in your home, and you could actually get to shelters very quickly on the outside, because these shelters are all over the place where the population is dense and the Israeli government has predicted there will be a likely attack.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me quote from Reuters, July 10th: "Israel’s Iron Dome interceptor has shot down some 90 percent of Palestinian rockets it engaged during this week’s surge of Gaza fighting, up from the 85 percent rate in the previous mini-war of 2012." Professor Postol, your response?
THEODORE POSTOL: Well, first of all, I am sorry to say that the press needs to engage in more due diligence on these matters. Where does this number come from? The number comes from an Israeli spokesperson. Now, if I give a number—and, incidentally, I have a long record of being correct on these matters—you don’t hear the press coming to me and asking me, do I believe that number is correct? And if I don’t believe the number is correct, why would I not believe the number is correct? This is really—you can really put this back on the due diligence of the press with regard to this matter. They’re just not—they’re just accepting information from an interested party.
AMY GOODMAN: So can you explain further how this works, how the Iron Dome—how Raytheon built this?
THEODORE POSTOL: Well, the Iron Dome is mostly an Israeli development, although Raytheon is involved. The Iron Dome interceptor has to approach an incoming artillery rocket head-on. So if you saw an Iron Dome interceptor flying a near-vertical trajectory, that would indicate the Iron Dome interceptor is in a near-head-on engagement geometry coming at the artillery rocket. In that geometry, the interceptor has some chance of destroying the artillery rocket warhead. If you see the Iron Dome interceptor engaging the artillery rocket from the side or from the back by chasing it, then it has essentially a zero chance of destroying the artillery rocket warhead. So, if you look up in the sky and you look at the hundreds of videos we now have of the contrails of the—the smoke trails of the Iron Dome interceptors, you can see that almost all the time—there are exceptions, but almost all the time—the Iron Dome interceptors are traveling parallel to the ground, which means that the falling artillery rocket is engaged from the side, or the Iron Domes are—the Iron Dome interceptors are diving to the ground, which means that they are trying to chase artillery rockets from behind. All those engagements are zero probability of intercept. And we’re guessing—we’re guessing, based on what we have, that maybe 10 percent or 15 or 20 percent of the engagements are head-on. Actually, it’s not 20 percent; it’s closer to 10 percent. And when you see so few engagements head on, your conclusion is that the system is not working the vast majority of the time.
AMY GOODMAN: This goes to the issue of the proportionality of the attack on Gaza. You know, more than 1,300 Palestinians have been killed. And so often when this issue is raised—and I think it’s three Israeli civilians, and of course every death is horrific on either side. But when this issue is raised, Israel just says, "Well, we have an extremely effective Iron Dome system." If it’s not Iron Dome, is it simply saying that these rockets that Hamas and other groups are firing off, they’re not working? I mean, if their intention is to kill, that they are not lethal weapons, if so few people have died and Iron Dome isn’t working?
THEODORE POSTOL: Well, one has to realize—you know, one has to know some simple technical facts. First of all, most artillery rockets are carrying warheads in the 10-to-20-pound range. So if you’re sitting in a room and the rocket comes through the roof and explodes in the room, it will kill you, and it will kill everybody else in the room. If you have 10 seconds or 20 seconds of warning and you go into the shelter that’s, by law, built in your home, and the rocket happens to hit your home, you won’t be killed. It can even hit the shelter, and you won’t be killed. So, sheltering and early warning are extremely critical to keeping the death toll down. Now, the odds of an artillery rocket going through the roof and into your room are very low. They’re high enough that if I were in Israel, I would advise you, and I would do so myself: I would take shelter, because there’s—you know, the inconvenience is small relative to being killed or injured. But most of these rockets are landing in open areas, landing between buildings, landing outside buildings. And the real danger is that this relatively low-lethality warhead lands within 10 or 20 feet of you.
Now, if you just lie on the ground—let’s say you’re caught in the open, and you can’t go to a shelter—the Israeli government itself will tell you that your chances of being a casualty from a falling artillery rocket are reduced by 80 percent—80 percent—if you simply lie on the ground. And the reason for that is the lethal range of these low-weight warheads is not very large, and they are blowing fragments out sort of like a shotgun, and if you get close to the ground, unless you’re very unlucky and the thing lands on you or lands very close to you, you’re not going to be injured by the explosion. So, although these artillery rockets are fantastically disruptive, with regard to the functioning of Israeli society—and I think that that is true, and because of that, there’s a psychological and political leverage associated with these artillery rocket attacks—they are not killing people, as long as people are taking shelter and sheltering is available.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Postol, I’m looking at a Boston Globepiece on the Iron Dome and Raytheon being a key in the Israeli defense plan. And it says, "For Raytheon, the Israeli contracts—part of a 'coproduction' deal with Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems—present a potential financial windfall. Much of the work would be done at Raytheon’s Tucson, Ariz., missile systems plant, as well by subcontractors across the country." Can you talk more about exactly what Raytheon does and if this Iron Dome system is now being sold to other countries?
THEODORE POSTOL: Well, I’m not aware of sales to other countries at this point. I haven’t been following that part of the issue. On the question of foreign aid, in this case to Israel, it’s very common—it’s almost always the United States government requires that foreign aid largely be spent with—using American companies. And in the case of Raytheon, they are the premier company for basically building missiles and interceptors of all kinds. So, it’s a natural business arrangement for Raytheon to be a big beneficiary of an agreement like that, because the money goes to Israel in a virtual way, but it basically is spent in the United States.
Now, this brings—this raises the question of the cost of these interceptors. The Israelis are saying—some Israelis are saying that the interceptors cost $20,000 each. Now, the reason for lowballing this number—I’ll give you a sense of what it could cost—is because the interceptors, the Iron Dome interceptors, are intercepting rockets that might cost $500 or $1,000 each. So there’s an issue of how much you should pay, assuming the system is working, for stopping an artillery rocket, especially if the passive defense, if the taking shelter, saves lives. And, you know, for example, how many artillery shells cause $20,000 or $100,000 worth of damage. And the actual cost of an Iron Dome interceptor is almost certainly well over $100,000, not the $20,000 that some Israeli sources seem to be saying. Now, just to give you a sense of how off the cost could be—again, we don’t know at this point—another interesting fact, there’s so much we don’t know, yet people are throwing money at this. There’s a comparable missile in its cost called the Sidewinder. It’s an air-to-air missile that Raytheon manufactures and sells. The Iron Dome interceptor is very close to an air-to-air missile. It’s a very small missile, weights about 200 pounds, and so does this air-to-air missile—different design, though. That costs $400,000 each. So how is it possible to build an interceptor that has the same advanced technology—it’s not exactly the same, but similar—and roughly the same size, and it only costs $20,000 each? There’s a significant question there about whether the Congress and the American people have accurate information about what this system is really costing.
AMY GOODMAN: So you’re raising very serious questions about the effectiveness of Iron Dome. Hundreds of millions of dollars—in fact, more than the Obama administration has asked for—is being discussed in Congress to pour into this.
THEODORE POSTOL: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Mainly to Raytheon and other U.S. companies. Have you been called by anyone in Congress to testify, to raise your concerns?
THEODORE POSTOL: Of course not. Congress is not interested in information. What I can tell you, I have not been directly involved, but I have been privy to discussions with members of Congress who have oversight responsibilities, who have acknowledged in those discussions that they have no idea whether Iron Dome is working or not. And I can also tell you that the U.S. government has not been given any information on the performance of Iron Dome. So, when Susan Rice, the national security adviser, makes a statement about how well Iron Dome is working, somebody should ask Susan Rice what’s her source, because I can tell you that there—and she should have a source. She should be able to tell you, you know, "We had the following national laboratory take the data from the Israelis. They looked at it. And let me tell you, this thing is working well." Instead, she gets on television and talks about this working well. Somebody should ask her, somebody in the press corps should do their due diligence and ask her, "Where did you get this information?"
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I mean, it’s not just Susan Rice, the national security adviser. It’s President Obama himself. This is what President Obama said.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There’s no country on Earth that can be expected to live under a daily barrage of rockets. And I’m proud that the Iron Dome system that Americans helped Israel develop and fund has saved many Israeli lives.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama.
THEODORE POSTOL: Again, Mr. Obama should be able to answer the question of which American technical institution has obtained the data from the Israelis and verified the accuracy of the data and verified that the performance levels are what they are. I know that the Israelis have the data. They have radar data. They have video data in the visible. They have video data in the infrared. They have substantial amounts of data that they could and should make available to the United States, to our technical institutions, and have this data reviewed and certified. And any politician, whether it’s the president or his national security adviser, who makes a claim that this system is performing that well, should be able to point a finger at the specific agency that has the technical resources to review this data and has obtained this data from the Israelis. This is just an outrage.
AMY GOODMAN: Physicist Theodore Postol. He’s a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He recently wrote an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientistscalled "The Evidence that Shows Iron Dome Is Not Working." This is Democracy Now! To see the first part of that interview, you can go to democracynow.org.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
 
-->

Gaza, Death, Aggression, Chomsky

$
0
0

THE ABSURD TIMES





 



Above: A father posted this picture of his son.  It was forced down in 2 hours or less.  We saw it on Social Media and promised to post it here.


 



Above: Zoroaster.


We started out trying to put this entire Israel Gaza thing into context, and we have an interview below.  Since then, however, a few other things have happened.

There is much concern with the fate of the Yazidis, who are decendents of the prophet Zoroaster, a belief Nietzsche mocked in his Also Sprach Zarathustra, so named because he could find no religion with which he disagreed with more absolutely.  Anyway, these people have sought refuge from ISIS on a mountaintop in Iraq, believed to be the mountain on which Noah (remember him?) landed his arc.  I have forgotten how many square cubits the arc was.  So, Obama the First is going to bomb the mountaintop with water and food.  Otherwise, they have the option of converting to Islam or death.  Leave free or die, no?

The Christians have three options:  Convert, Pay a Tax, or Die.  Actually, the idea of religious groups paying taxes is not such a bad idea, but that's for another day.

Isis only has enough brains to do anything well when it is controlled by the members of the Ba'ath party, competent commanders we left in charge and Maliki discharged in the name of Allah, or loyalty to him (Maliki).

Putin, to take action against the U.S. for its sanctions, has placed an embargo on many American agricultural products, especially chicken.  So, chicken prices will go down drastically here and the chickens will stay home to roost.

There is a great deal of concern about "Mission Creep" as we have started bombing in Iraq.

Oh, yeah, Israel is starting bombing in Gaza as the cease-fire ended as a result of no blockade points being lifted.  More about that tomorrow. 

However, as a result of Norman Finkelstein's expose' of Israel, we do feel like presenting the other side, represented by comments from Alan Derschowitz.  See, most people look at all the dead women in children and the many more wounded and screaming in the streets of Gaza and think that Israel is responsible for it.  After all, two people in Israel were killed by causes somehow related to a Hamas rocket.  Actually three, but he wasn't Jewish so he doesn't count.

Now, this thinking, according to Derschowitz is completely wrong: Gaza is the killer.  Now I would never diagnose Derschowitz of Psychological Neotany, as I have never met him,  I don't know if he beat up a sixth grader when he was 33 or slashed his sister's tires.  This is what happened, according to him:  Suppose you are in a bank and a robber comes in.  He scares all the customers and, when the cop comes in, he takes a hostage.  I'm not sure if the robber fired his gun into the air or whether he even had a gun, but if the cop then shoots the hostage while aiming at the robber, the robber is guilty of murder.  Now, the bank is Israel (according the the principle of Lebensraum, established in the 1930s)  and the robber is Hamas and the hostage is a Palestinian citizen.  Therefore, Israel is not guilty of killing about 2,000 civilians in Gaza.  What could be more clear?

Ok, now for the full background of this was of aggression by an occupation force:

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2014

"A Hideous Atrocity": Noam Chomsky on Israel’s Assault on Gaza & U.S. Support for the Occupation

Hideous. Sadistic. Vicious. Murderous. That is how Noam Chomsky describes Israel’s 29-day offensive in Gaza that killed nearly 1,900 people and left almost 10,000 people injured. Chomsky has written extensively about the Israel/Palestine conflict for decades. After Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, Chomsky co-authored the book "Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians" with Israeli scholar Ilan Pappé. His other books on the Israel/Palestine conflict include "Peace in the Middle East?: Reflections on Justice and Nationhood" and "The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians." Chomsky is a world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught for more than 50 years.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: To talk more about the crisis in Gaza, we go now to Boston, where we are joined by Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than 50 years. He has written extensively about the Israel-Palestine conflict for decades.
AMY GOODMAN: Forty years ago this month, Noam Chomsky published Peace in the Middle East?: Reflections on Justice and Nationhood. His 1983 book, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, is known as one of the definitive works on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Professor Chomsky joins us from Boston.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Noam. Please first just comment, since we haven’t spoken to you throughout the Israeli assault on Gaza. Your comments on what has just taken place?
NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s a hideous atrocity, sadistic, vicious, murderous, totally without any credible pretext. It’s another one of the periodic Israeli exercises in what they delicately call "mowing the lawn." That means shooting fish in the pond, to make sure that the animals stay quiet in the cage that you’ve constructed for them, after which you go to a period of what’s called "ceasefire," which means that Hamas observes the ceasefire, as Israel concedes, while Israel continues to violate it. Then it’s broken by an Israeli escalation, Hamas reaction. Then you have period of "mowing the lawn." This one is, in many ways, more sadistic and vicious even than the earlier ones.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what of the pretext that Israel used to launch these attacks? Could you talk about that and to what degree you feel it had any validity?
NOAM CHOMSKY: As high Israeli officials concede, Hamas had observed the previous ceasefire for 19 months. The previous episode of "mowing the lawn" was in November 2012. There was a ceasefire. The ceasefire terms were that Hamas would not fire rockets—what they call rockets—and Israel would move to end the blockade and stop attacking what they call militants in Gaza. Hamas lived up to it. Israel concedes that.
In April of this year, an event took place which horrified the Israeli government: A unity agreement was formed between Gaza and the West Bank, between Hamas and Fatah. Israel has been desperately trying to prevent that for a long time. There’s a background we could talk about, but it’s important. Anyhow, the unity agreement came. Israel was furious. They got even more upset when the U.S. more or less endorsed it, which is a big blow to them. They launched a rampage in the West Bank.
What was used as a pretext was the brutal murder of three settler teenagers. There was a pretense that they were alive, though they knew they were dead. That allowed a huge—and, of course, they blamed it right away on Hamas. They have yet to produce a particle of evidence, and in fact their own highest leading authorities pointed out right away that the killers were probably from a kind of a rogue clan in Hebron, the Qawasmeh clan, which turns out apparently to be true. They’ve been a thorn in the sides of Hamas for years. They don’t follow their orders.
But anyway, that gave the opportunity for a rampage in the West Bank, arresting hundreds of people, re-arresting many who had been released, mostly targeted on Hamas. Killings increased. Finally, there was a Hamas response: the so-called rocket attacks. And that gave the opportunity for "mowing the lawn" again.
AMY GOODMAN: You said that Israel does this periodically, Noam Chomsky. Why do they do this periodically?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Because they want to maintain a certain situation. There’s a background. For over 20 years, Israel has been dedicated, with U.S. support, to separating Gaza from the West Bank. That’s in direct violation of the terms of the Oslo Accord 20 years ago, which declared that the West Bank and Gaza are a single territorial entity whose integrity must be preserved. But for rogue states, solemn agreements are just an invitation to do whatever you want. So Israel, with U.S. backing, has been committed to keeping them separate.
And there’s a good reason for that. Just look at the map. If Gaza is the only outlet to the outside world for any eventual Palestinian entity, whatever it might be, the West Bank—if separated from Gaza, the West Bank is essentially imprisoned—Israel on one side, the Jordanian dictatorship on the other. Furthermore, Israel is systematically driving Palestinians out of the Jordan Valley, sinking wells, building settlements. They first call them military zones, then put in settlements—the usual story. That would mean that whatever cantons are left for Palestinians in the West Bank, after Israel takes what it wants and integrates it into Israel, they would be completely imprisoned. Gaza would be an outlet to the outside world, so therefore keeping them separate from one another is a high goal of policy, U.S. and Israeli policy.
And the unity agreement threatened that. Threatened something else Israel has been claiming for years. One of its arguments for kind of evading negotiations is: How can they negotiate with the Palestinians when they’re divided? Well, OK, so if they’re not divided, you lose that argument. But the more significant one is simply the geostrategic one, which is what I described. So the unity government was a real threat, along with the tepid, but real, endorsement of it by the United States, and they immediately reacted.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Noam, what do you make of the—as you say, Israel seeks to maintain the status quo, while at the same time continuing to create a new reality on the ground of expanded settlements. What do you make of the continued refusal of one administration after another here in the United States, which officially is opposed to the settlement expansion, to refuse to call Israel to the table on this attempt to create its own reality on the ground?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, your phrase "officially opposed" is quite correct. But we can look at—you know, you have to distinguish the rhetoric of a government from its actions, and the rhetoric of political leaders from their actions. That should be obvious. So we can see how committed the U.S. is to this policy, easily. For example, in February 2011, the U.N. Security Council considered a resolution which called for—which called on Israel to terminate its expansion of settlements. Notice that the expansion of settlements is not really the issue. It’s the settlements. The settlements, the infrastructure development, all of this is in gross violation of international law. That’s been determined by the Security Council, the International Court of Justice. Practically every country in the world, outside of Israel, recognizes this. But this was a resolution calling for an end to expansion of settlements—official U.S. policy. What happened? Obama vetoed the resolution. That tells you something.
Furthermore, the official statement to Israel about the settlement expansion is accompanied by what in diplomatic language is called a wink—a quiet indication that we don’t really mean it. So, for example, Obama’s latest condemnation of the recent, as he puts it, violence on all sides was accompanied by sending more military aid to Israel. Well, they can understand that. And that’s been true all along. In fact, when Obama came into office, he made the usual statements against settlement expansion. And his administration was—spokespersons were asked in press conferences whether Obama would do anything about it, the way the first George Bush did something—mild sanctions—to block settlement expansions. And the answer was, "No, this is just symbolic." Well, that tells the Israeli government exactly what’s happening. And, in fact, if you look step by step, the military aid continues, the economic aid continues, the diplomatic protection continues, the ideological protection continues. By that, I mean framing the issues in ways that conform to Israeli demand. All of that continues, along with a kind of clucking of the tongue, saying, "Well, we really don’t like it, and it’s not helpful to peace." Any government can understand that.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who spoke to foreign journalists yesterday.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Israel accepted and Hamas rejected the Egyptian ceasefire proposal of July 15th. And I want you to know that at that time the conflict had claimed some 185 lives. Only on Monday night did Hamas finally agree to that very same proposal, which went into effect yesterday morning. That means that 90 percent, a full 90 percent, of the fatalities in this conflict could have been avoided had Hamas not rejected then the ceasefire that it accepts now. Hamas must be held accountable for the tragic loss of life.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, can you respond to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu?
NOAM CHOMSKY: [inaudible] narrow response and a broad response. The narrow response is that, of course, as Netanyahu knows, that ceasefire proposal was arranged between the Egyptian military dictatorship and Israel, both of them very hostile to Hamas. It was not even communicated to Hamas. They learned about it through social media, and they were angered by that, naturally. They said they won’t accept it on those terms. Now, that’s the narrow response.
The broad response is that 100 percent of the casualties and the destruction and the devastation and so on could have been avoided if Israel had lived up to the ceasefire agreement after the—from November 2012, instead of violating it constantly and then escalating the violation in the manner that I described, in order to block the unity government and to persist in their policy of—the policies of taking over what they want in the West Bank and keeping—separating it from Gaza, and keeping Gaza on what they’ve called a "diet," Dov Weissglas’s famous comment. The man who negotiated the so-called withdrawal in 2005 pointed out that the purpose of the withdrawal is to end the discussion of any political settlement and to block any possibility of a Palestinian state, and meanwhile the Gazans will be kept on a diet, meaning just enough calories allowed so they don’t all die—because that wouldn’t look good for Israel’s fading reputation—but nothing more than that. And with its vaunted technical capacity, Israel, Israeli experts calculated precisely how many calories would be needed to keep the Gazans on their diet, under siege, blocked from export, blocked from import. Fishermen can’t go out to fish. The naval vessels drive them back to shore. A large part, probably over a third and maybe more, of Gaza’s arable land is barred from entry to Palestinians. It’s called a "barrier." That’s the norm. That’s the diet. They want to keep them on that, meanwhile separated from the West Bank, and continue the ongoing project of taking over—I can describe the details, but it’s not obscure—taking over the parts of the West Bank that Israel intends—is integrating into Israel, and presumably will ultimately annex in some fashion, as long as the United States continues to support it and block international efforts to lead to a political settlement.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Noam, as this whole month has unfolded and these images of the carnage in Gaza have spread around the world, what’s your assessment of the impact on the already abysmal relationship that exists between the United States government and the Arab and Muslim world? I’m thinking especially of all the young Muslims and Arabs around the world who maybe had not been exposed to prior atrocities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, first of all, we have to distinguish between the Muslim and Arab populations and their governments—striking difference. The governments are mostly dictatorships. And when you read in the press that the Arabs support us on so-and-so, what is meant is the dictators support us, not the populations. The dictatorships are moderately supportive of what the U.S. and Israel are doing. That includes the military dictatorship in Egypt, a very brutal one; Saudi Arabian dictatorship. Saudi Arabia is the closest U.S. ally in the region, and it’s the most radical fundamentalist Islamic state in the world. It’s also spreading its Salafi-Wahhabi doctrines throughout the world, extremist fundamentalist doctrines. It’s been the leading ally of the United States for years, just as it was for Britain before it. They’ve both tended to prefer radical Islam to the danger of secular nationalism and democracy. And they are fairly supportive of—they don’t like—they hate Hamas. They have no interest in the Palestinians. They have to say things to kind of mollify their own populations, but again, rhetoric and action are different. So the dictatorships are not appalled by what’s happening. They probably are quietly cheering it.
The populations, of course, are quite different, but that’s always been true. So, for example, on the eve of the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Egypt, which overthrew the Mubarak dictatorship, there were international polls taken in the United States by the leading polling agencies, and they showed very clearly that I think about 80 percent of Egyptians regarded the main threats to them as being Israel and the United States. And, in fact, condemnation of the United States and its policies were so extreme that even though they don’t like Iran, a majority felt that the region might be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons. Well, if you look over the whole polling story over the years, it kind of varies around something like that. But that’s the populations. And, of course, the Muslim populations elsewhere don’t like it, either. But it’s not just the Muslim populations. So, for example, there was a demonstration in London recently, which probably had hundreds of thousands of people—it was quite a huge demonstration—protesting the Israeli atrocities in Gaza. And that’s happening elsewhere in the world, too. It’s worth remembering that—you go back a couple decades, Israel was one of the most admired countries in the world. Now it’s one of the most feared and despised countries in the world. Israeli propagandists like to say, well, this is just anti-Semitism. But to the extent that there’s an anti-Semitic element, which is slight, it’s because of Israeli actions. The reaction is to the policies. And as long as Israel persists in these policies, that’s what’s going to happen.
Actually, this has been pretty clear since the early 1970s. Actually, I’ve been writing about it since then, but it’s so obvious, that I don’t take any credit for that. In 1971, Israel made a fateful decision, the most fateful in its history, I think. President Sadat of Egypt offered Israel a full peace treaty, in return for withdrawal of Israel from the Egyptian Sinai. That was the Labor government, the so-called moderate Labor government at the time. They considered the offer and rejected it. They were planning to carry out extensive development programs in the Sinai, build a huge, big city on the Mediterranean, dozens of settlements, kibbutzim, others, big infrastructure, driving tens of thousands of Bedouins off the land, destroying the villages and so on. Those were the plans, beginning to implement them. And Israel made a decision to choose expansion over security. A treaty with Egypt would have meant security. That’s the only significant military force in the Arab world. And that’s been the policy ever since.
When you pursue a policy of repression and expansion over security, there are things that are going to happen. There will be moral degeneration within the country. There will be increasing opposition and anger and hostility among populations outside the country. You may continue to get support from dictatorships and from, you know, the U.S. administration, but you’re going to lose the populations. And that has a consequence. You could predict—in fact, I and others did predict back in the '70s—that, just to quote myself, "those who call themselves supporters of Israel are actually supporters of its moral degeneration, international isolation, and very possibly ultimate destruction." That's what’s—that’s the course that’s happening.
It’s not the only example in history. There are many analogies drawn to South Africa, most of them pretty dubious, in my mind. But there’s one analogy which I think is pretty realistic, which isn’t discussed very much. It should be. In 1958, the South African Nationalist government, which was imposing the harsh apartheid regime, recognized that they were becoming internationally isolated. We know from declassified documents that in 1958 the South African foreign minister called in the American ambassador. And we have the conversation. He essentially told him, "Look, we’re becoming a pariah state. We’re losing all the—everyone is voting against us in the United Nations. We’re becoming isolated. But it really doesn’t matter, because you’re the only voice that counts. And as long as you support us, doesn’t really matter what the world thinks." That wasn’t a bad prediction. If you look at what happened over the years, opposition to South African apartheid grew and developed. There was a U.N. arms embargo. Sanctions began. Boycotts began. It was so extreme by the 1980s that even the U.S. Congress was passing sanctions, which President Reagan had to veto. He was the last supporter of the apartheid regime. Congress actually reinstated the sanctions over his veto, and he then violated them. As late as 1988, Reagan, the last holdout, his administration declared the African National Congress, Mandela’s African National Congress, to be one of the more notorious terrorist groups in the world. So the U.S. had to keep supporting South Africa. It was supporting terrorist group UNITA in Angola. Finally, even the United States joined the rest of the world, and very quickly the apartheid regime collapsed.
Now that’s not fully analogous to the Israel case by any means. There were other reasons for the collapse of apartheid, two crucial reasons. One of them was that there was a settlement that was acceptable to South African and international business, simple settlement: keep the socioeconomic system and allow—put it metaphorically—allow blacks some black faces in the limousines. That was the settlement, and that’s pretty much what’s been implemented, not totally. There’s no comparable settlement in Israel-Palestine. But a crucial element, not discussed here, is Cuba. Cuba sent military forces and tens of thousands of technical workers, doctors and teachers and others, and they drove the South African aggressors out of Angola, and they compelled them to abandon illegally held Namibia. And more than that, as in fact Nelson Mandela pointed out as soon as he got out of prison, the Cuban soldiers, who incidentally were black soldiers, shattered the myth of invincibility of the white supermen. That had a very significant effect on both black Africa and the white South Africa. It indicated to the South African government and population that they’re not going to be able to impose their hope of a regional support system, at least quiet system, that would allow them to pursue their operations inside South Africa and their terrorist activities beyond. And that was a major factor in the liberation of black Africa.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we have to break, and we’re going to come back to this discussion. We’re talking to Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back with Professor Chomsky in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Our guest is Professor Noam Chomsky. I want to turn to President Obama speaking Wednesday at a news conference in Washington, D.C.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Long term, there has to be a recognition that Gaza cannot sustain itself permanently closed off from the world and incapable of providing some opportunity, jobs, economic growth for the population that lives there, particularly given how dense that population is, how young that population is. We’re going to have to see a shift in opportunity for the people of Gaza. I have no sympathy for Hamas. I have great sympathy for ordinary people who are struggling within Gaza.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama yesterday. Noam Chomsky, can you respond?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, as always, for all states and all political leaderships, we have to distinguish rhetoric from action. Any political leader can produce lovely rhetoric, even Hitler, Stalin, whoever you want. What we ask is: What are they doing? So exactly what does Obama suggest or carry out as a means to achieve the goal of ending the U.S.-backed Israeli siege, blockade of Gaza, which is creating this situation? What has it done in the past? What does it propose to do in the future? There are things that the U.S. could do very easily. Again, don’t want to draw the South African analogy too closely, but it is indicative. And it’s not the only case. The same happened, as you remember, in the Indonesia-East Timor case. When the United States, Clinton, finally told the Indonesian generals, "The game’s over," they pulled out immediately. U.S. power is substantial. And in the case of Israel, it’s critical, because Israel relies on virtually unilateral U.S. support. There are plenty of things the U.S. can do to implement what Obama talked about. And the question is—and, in fact, when the U.S. gives orders, Israel obeys. That’s happened over and over again. That’s completely obvious why, given the power relationships. So things can be done. They were done by Bush two, by Clinton, by Reagan, and the U.S. could do them again. Then we’ll know whether those words were anything other than the usual pleasant rhetoric.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Talking about separating rhetoric from actions, Israel has always claimed that it no longer occupies Gaza. Democracy Now! recently spoke toJoshua Hantman, who’s a senior adviser to the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a former spokesperson for the Israeli Defense Ministry. And Hantman said, quote, "Israel actually left the Gaza Strip in 2005. We removed all of our settlements. We removed the IDF forces. We took out 10,000 Jews from their houses as a step for peace, because Israel wants peace and it extended its hand for peace." Your response?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, several points. First of all, the United Nations, every country in the world, even the United States, regards Israel as the occupying power in Gaza—for a very simple reason: They control everything there. They control the borders, the land, sea, air. They determine what goes into Gaza, what comes out. They determine how many calories Gazan children need to stay alive, but not to flourish. That’s occupation, under international law, and no one questions it, outside of Israel. Even the U.S. agrees, their usual backer. That puts—with that, we end the discussion of whether they’re an occupying power or not.
As for wanting peace, look back at that so-called withdrawal. Notice that it left Israel as the occupying power. By 2005, Israeli hawks, led by Ariel Sharon, pragmatic hawk, recognized that it just makes no sense for Israel to keep a few thousand settlers in devastated Gaza and devote a large part of the IDF, the Israeli military, to protecting them, and many expenses breaking up Gaza into separate parts and so on. Made no sense to do that. Made a lot more sense to take those settlers from their subsidized settlements in Gaza, where they were illegally residing, and send them off to subsidized settlements in the West Bank, in areas that Israel intends to keep—illegally, of course. That just made pragmatic sense.
And there was a very easy way to do it. They could have simply informed the settlers in Gaza that on August 1st the IDF is going to withdrawal, and at that point they would have climbed into the lorries that are provided to them and gone off to their illegal settlements in the West Bank and, incidentally, the Golan Heights. But it was decided to construct what’s sometimes called a "national trauma." So a trauma was constructed, a theater. It was just ridiculed by leading specialists in Israel, like the leading sociologist—Baruch Kimmerling just made fun of it. And trauma was created so you could have little boys, pictures of them pleading with the Israeli soldiers, "Don’t destroy my home!" and then background calls of "Never again." That means "Never again make us leave anything," referring to the West Bank primarily. And a staged national trauma. What made it particularly farcical was that it was a repetition of what even the Israeli press called "National Trauma ’82," when they staged a trauma when they had to withdraw from Yamit, the city they illegally built in the Sinai. But they kept the occupation. They moved on.
And I’ll repeat what Weissglas said. Recall, he was the negotiator with the United States, Sharon’s confidant. He said the purpose of the withdrawal is to end negotiations on a Palestinian state and Palestinian rights. This will end it. This will freeze it, with U.S. support. And then comes imposition of the diet on Gaza to keep them barely alive, but not flourishing, and the siege. Within weeks after the so-called withdrawal, Israel escalated the attacks on Gaza and imposed very harsh sanctions, backed by the United States. The reason was that a free election took place in Palestine, and it came out the wrong way. Well, Israel and the United States, of course, love democracy, but only if it comes out the way they want. So, the U.S. and Israel instantly imposed harsh sanctions. Israeli attacks, which really never ended, escalated. Europe, to its shame, went along. Then Israel and the United States immediately began planning for a military coup to overthrow the government. When Hamas pre-empted that coup, there was fury in both countries. The sanctions and military attacks increased. And then we’re on to what we discussed before: periodic episodes of "mowing the lawn."
AMY GOODMAN: We only—Noam, we only have a minute.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, at this point, a lot of the U.S. media is saying the U.S. had been sidelined, it’s now all about Egypt doing this negotiation. What needs to happen right now? The ceasefire will end in a matter of hours, if it isn’t extended. What kind of truce needs to be accomplished here?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, for Israel, with U.S. backing, the current situation is a kind of a win-win situation. If Hamas agrees to extend the ceasefire, Israel can continue with its regular policies, which I described before: taking over what they want in the West Bank, separating it from Gaza, keeping the diet and so on. If Hamas doesn’t accept the ceasefire, Netanyahu can make another speech like the one you—the cynical speech you quoted earlier. The only thing that can break this is if the U.S. changes its policies, as has happened in other cases. I mentioned two: South Africa, Timor. There’s others. And that’s decisive. If there’s going to be a change, it will crucially depend on a change in U.S. policy here. For 40 years, the United States has been almost unilaterally backing Israeli rejectionism, refusal to entertain the overwhelming international consensus on a two-state settlement.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we have to leave it there, but we’re going to continue our conversation post-show, and we’re going to post it online at democracynow.org. Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


-->

[New post] Marx’s Theory of Aienation

$
0
0




poet816 posted: "It has been far too long since I published anything here, but what with contemporary events such as they are, I have been quite busy and angry elsewhere.  However, there is something alienating about such events which, of course, made me think of István M"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on NeoBohemia

Marx's Theory of Alienation

by poet816
It has been far too long since I published anything here, but what with contemporary events such as they are, I have been quite busy and angry elsewhere.  However, there is something alienating about such events which, of course, made me think of István Mészáros and his approach to the subject.  So, rather than expound at length on my own take on the subject as usual, I thought I would simply let him speak for himself.  Usually, I use such long essays and selections as documentation for things I want to say, but he says things quite well for us all, I believe -- at least those of us who hang out on blogs such as this.
István Mészáros, 1970
Marx's Theory of Aienation

1. Origins of the Concept of Alienation


As is well known, Feuerbach, Hegel and English Political Economy exercised the most direct influence on the formation of Marx's theory of alienation. But we are concerned here with much more than simple intellectual influences. The concept of alienation belongs to a vast and complex problematics, with a long history of its own. Preoccupations with this problematics – in forms ranging from the Bible to literary works as well as treatises on Law, Economy and Philosophy – reflect objective trends of European development, from slavery to the age of transition from capitalism to socialism. Intellectual influences, revealing important continuities across the transformations of social structures, acquire their real significance only if they are considered in this objective framework of development. If so assessed, their importance – far from being exhausted in mere historical curiosity – cannot be stressed enough: precisely because they indicate the deep-rootedness of certain problematics as well as the relative autonomy of the forms of thought in which they are reflected.
It must be made equally clear, however, that such influences are exercised in the dialectical sense of "continuity in discontinuity". Whether the element of continuity predominates over discontinuity or the other way round, and in what precise form and correlation, is a matter for concrete historical analysis. As we shall see, in the case of Marx's thought in its relation to antecedent theories discontinuity is the "übergreifendes Moment", but some elements of continuity are also very important.
Some of the principal themes of modern theories of alienation appeared in European thought, in one form or another, many centuries ago. To follow their development in detail would require copious volumes. In the few pages at our disposal we cannot attempt more than an outline of the general trends of this development, describing their main characteristics insofar as they link up with Marx's theory of alienation and help to throw light on it.

1. The Judeo-Christian Approach

The first aspect we have to consider is the lament about being "alienated from God" (or having "fallen from Grace") which belongs to the common heritage of Judeo-Christian mythology. The divine order, it is said, has been violated; man has alienated himself from "the ways of God", whether simply by "the fall of man" or later by "the dark idolatries of alienated Judah", or later again by the behaviour of "Christians alienated from the life of God". The messianic mission consists in rescuing man from this state of self-alienation which he had brought upon himself.
But this is as far as the similarities go in the Judeo-Christian problematics; and far-reaching differences prevail in other respects. For the form in which the messianic transcendence of alienation is envisaged is not a matter of indifference. "Remember"– says Paul the Apostle – "that ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made High by the blood of Christ.... Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Christianity thus, in its universality, announces the imaginary solution of human self-alienation in the form of "the mystery of Christ." This mystery postulates the reconciliation of the contradictions which made groups of people oppose each other as "strangers", "foreigners", "enemies". This is not only a reflection of a specific form of social struggle but at the same time also its mystical "resolution" which induced Marx to write: "It was only in appearance that Christianity overcame real Judaism. It was too refined, too spiritual to eliminate the crudeness of practical need except by raising it into the ethereal realm. Christianity is the sublime thought of Judaism. Judaism is the vulgar practical application of Christianity. But this practical application could only become universal when Christianity as perfected religion had accomplished, in a theoretical fashion, the alienation of man from himself and from nature." [Marx, On the Jewish Question]
Judaism in its "crude" realism reflects with a much greater immediacy the actual state of affairs, advocating a virtually endless continuation of the extension of its worldly powers – i.e. settling for a "quasi-messianic" solution on earth: this is why it is in no hurry whatsoever about the arrival of its Messiah – in the form of two, complementary, postulates:
1. the softening of internal class conflicts, in the interest of the cohesion of the national community in its confrontation with the outside world of the "strangers": "For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thy hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land."
2. the promise of readmission into the grace of God is partly fulfilled in the form of granting the power of domination over the "strangers" to Judah: "And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your ploughmen and your vinedressers."
The formidable practical vehicle of this expanding domination was the weapon of "usury" which needed, however, in order to become really effective, its suitable counterpart which offered an unlimited outlet for the power of this weapon: i.e. the metamorphosis of Judaism into Christianity. For "Judaism attains its apogee with the perfection of civil society; but civil society only reaches perfection in the Christian world. Only under the sway of Christianity, which objectifies a national, natural, moral and theoretical relationships, could civil society separate itself completely from the life of the state, sever all the species-bonds of man, establish egoism and selfish need in their place, and dissolve the human world into a world of atomistic, antagonistic individuals."
The ethos of Judaism which stimulated this development was not confined to the general assertion of the God-willed superiority of the "chosen people" in its confrontation with the world of strangers, issuing in commands like this: "Ye shall not eat any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God." Far more important was in the practical sense the absolute prohibition imposed on the exploitation of the sons of Judah through usury: "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury." Usury was only allowed in dealings withstrangers, but not with "brethren".
Christianity, by contrast, which refused to retain this discrimination between "any of my people" and "strangers" (or "aliens") postulating in its place the "universal brotherhood of mankind", not only deprived itself of the powerful weapon of "usury" (i.e. of "interest" and the accumulation of capital coupled with it) as the most important vehicle of early economic expansion but at the same time also became an easy prey to the triumphant advance of the "spirit of Judaism". The "crude and vulgar practical principle of Judaism" discussed by Marx – i.e. the effectively self-centred, internally cohesive, practical-empirical partiality could easily triumph over the abstract theoretical universality of Christianity established as a set of "purely formal rites with which the world of self-interest encircles itself". (On the importance of "usury" and the controversies related to it at the time of the rise of early capitalism)
It is very important to emphasise here that the issue at stake is not simply the empirical reality of Jewish communities in Europe but "the spirit of Judaism"; i.e. the internal principle of European social developments culminating in the emergence and stabilisation of capitalistic society. "The spirit of Judaism", therefore, must be understood, in the last analysis, to mean "the spirit of capitalism". For an early realisation of the latter Judaism as an empirical reality only provided a suitable vehicle. Ignoring this distinction, for one reason or another, could lead – as it did throughout the ages – to scapegoat-hunting anti-Semitism. The objective conditions of European social development, from the dissolution of pre-feudal society to the Universal triumph of capitalism over feudalism, must be assessed in their comprehensive complexity of which Judaism as a sociological phenomenon is a part only, however important a part it may have been at certain stages of this development.
Judaism and Christianity are complementary aspects of society's efforts to cope with its internal contradictions. They both represent attempts at an imaginary transcendence of these contradictions, at an illusory "reappropriation" of the "human essence" through a fictitious supersession of the state of alienation. Judaism and Christianity express the contradictions of "partiality versus universality" and "competition versus monopoly": i.e. internalcontradictions of what has become known as "the spirit of capitalism". In this framework the success of partiality can only be conceived in contradiction to and at the expense of universality – just as this "universality" can only prevail on the basis of the suppression of partiality – and vice versa. Similarly with the relationship between competition and monopoly: the condition of success of "competition" is the negation of monopoly just as for monopoly the condition of extending its power is the suppression of competition. The partiality of Judaism, the "chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the trader, and above all of the financier"– writes Marx, repeatedly emphasising that "the social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism", i.e. from the partiality of the financier's "nationality", or, expressed in more general terms, from "the Jewish narrowness of society". "Jewish narrowness" could triumph in "civil society" because the latter required the dynamism of the "supremely practical Jewish spirit" for its full development. The metamorphosis of Judaism into Christianity carried with it a later metamorphosis of Christianity into a more evolved, less crudely partial form of – secularised – Judaism: "The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only by acquiring the power of money, but also because money had become, through him and also apart from him, a world power, while the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves in so far as the Christians have become Jews. Protestant modifications of earlier established Christianity, in various national settings, had accomplished a relatively early metamorphosis of "abstract-theoretical" Christianity into "practical-Christian-Judaism" as a significant step in the direction of the complete secularisation of the whole problematics of alienation. Parallel to the expanding domination of the spirit of capitalism in the practical sphere, the ideological forms have become more and more secular as well; from the various versions of "deism" through "humanistic atheism" to the famous declaration stating that "God is dead". By the time of the latter even the illusions of "universality" with which "the world of self-interest encircles itself"– retained and at times even intensified by deism and humanistic atheism – have become acutely embarrassing for the bourgeoisie and a sudden, often cynical, transition had to be made to the open cult of partiality.
As has been mentioned, under the conditions of class society because of the inherent contradiction between the "part" and the "whole", due to the fact that partial interest dominates the whole of society – the principle of partiality stands in an insoluble contradiction to that of Universality. Consequently it is the crude relation of forces that elevates the prevailing form of partiality into a bogus universality, whereas the ideal-oriented negation of this partiality, e.g. the abstract-theoretical universality of Christianity, before its metamorphosis into "practical-Christian-Judaism"– must remain illusory, fictitious, impotent. For "partiality" and "universality" in their reciprocal opposition to each other are two facets of the same, alienated, state of affairs. Egoistic partiality must be elevated to "universality" for its fulfilment: the underlying socioeconomic dynamism is both "self-centred" and "outer-directed", "nationalist" and "cosmopolitan", "protectionist-isolationist" and "imperialist" at the same time. This is why there can be no room for genuine universality, only for the bogus universalisation of the crudest partiality, coupled with an illusory, abstract-theoretical postulate of universality as the – merely ideological – negation of effective, practically prevailing partiality. Thus the "chimerical nationality of the Jew" is all the more chimerical because – insofar as it is "the nationality of the trader and of the financier"– it is in reality the only effective universality: partiality turned into operative universality, into the fundamental organising principle of the society in question. (The mystifications of anti-Semitism become obvious if one realises that it turns against the mere sociological phenomenon of Jewish partiality, and not against "the Jewish narrowness of society"; it attacks partiality in its limited immediacy, and thus not only does it not face the real problem: the partiality of capitalist self-interest turned into the ruling universal principle of society, but actively supports its own object of attack by means of this disorienting mystification.)
For Marx, in his reflections on the Judeo-Christian approach to the problems of alienation, the matter of central concern was to find a solution that could indicate a way out of the apparently perennial impasse: the renewed reproduction, in different forms, of the same contradiction between partiality and universality which characterised the entire historical development and its ideological reflections. His answer was not simply the double negation of crude partiality and abstract universality. Such a solution would have remained an abstract conceptual opposition and no more. The historical novelty of Marx's solution consisted in defining the problem in terms of the concrete dialectical concept of "partiality prevailing as universality", in opposition to genuine universality which alone could embrace the manifold interests of society as a whole and of man as a "species-being" (Gattungswesen - i.e. man liberated from the domination of crude, individualistic self-interest). It was this specific, socially concrete concept which enabled Marx to grasp the problematics of capitalist society in its full contradictoriness and to formulate the programme of a practical transcendence of alienation by means of a genuinely universalising fusion of ideal and reality, theory and practice.
Also, we have to emphasise in this context that Marx had nothing to do with abstract "humanism" because he opposed right from the outset – as we have seen in the quotations taken from On the Jewish Question, written in 1843 – the illusions of abstract universality as a mere postulate, an impotent "ought", a fictitious"reappropriation of non-alienated humanness". There is no trace, therefore, of what might be termed "ideological concepts" in the thought of the young Marx who writes On the Jewish Question, let alone in the socioeconomically far more concrete reflections contained in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.

2. Alienation as "Universal Saleability"

The secularisation of the religious concept of alienation had been accomplished in the concrete assertions concerning "saleability". In the first place this secularisation progressed within the religious shell. Nothing could withstand this trend of converting everything into a saleable object, no matter how "sacred" it may have been considered at some stage in its "inalienability" sanctioned by an alleged divine command. (Balzac's Melmoth is a masterfully ironical reflection on the state of a totally secularised society in which "even the Holy Spirit has its quotation on the Stock Exchange".) Even the doctrine of the "fall of man" had to be challenged – as it had been done by Luther, for instance – in the name of man's "liberty". This advocacy of "liberty", however, in reality turned out to be nothing more than the religious glorification of the secular principle of "universal saleability". It was this latter which found its – however utopian – adversary in Thomas Münzer who complained in his pamphlet against Luther, saying that it was intolerable "that every creature should be transformed into property– the fishes in the water, the birds of the air, the plants of the earth". Insights like this, no matter how profoundly and truthfully they reflected the inner nature of the transformations in course, had to remain mere utopias, ineffective protests conceived from the perspective of a hopeless anticipation of a possible future negation of commodity-society. At the time of the triumphant emergence of capitalism the prevalent ideological conceptions had to be those which assumed an affirmative attitude towards the objective trends of this development.
In the conditions of feudal society the hindrances which resisted the advance of "the spirit of capitalism" were, for instance, that "the vassal could not alienate without the consent of his superior (Adam Smith) or that "the bourgeois cannot alienate the things of the community without the permission of the king" (thirteenth century). The supreme ideal was that everyone should be able "to give and to alienate that which belongs to him" (thirteenth century). Obviously, however, the social order which confined to "The Lord" the power to "sell his Servant, or alienate him by Testament" (Hobbes) fell hopelessly short of the requirements of "free alienability" of everything – including one's person – by means of some contractual arrangement to which the person concerned would be a party. Land too, one of the sacred pillars of the outdated social order, had to become "alienable" so that the self-development of commodity society should go on unhampered.
That alienation as universal saleability involved reification has been recognised well before the whole social order which operated on this basis could be subjected to a radical and effective criticism. The mystifying glorification of "liberty" as "contractually safeguarded freedom" (in fact the contractual abdication of human freedom) played an important part in delaying the recognition of the underlying contradictions. Saying this does not alter, however, the fact that the connection between alienation and relocation has been recognised – even though in an uncritical form – by some philosophers who far from questioning the contractual foundations of society idealised it. Kant, for instance, made the point that "such a contract is not a mere reification [or "conversion into a thing"– Verdingung] but the transference – by means of hiring it out of one's person into the property of the Lord of the house. All object, a piece of dead property could be simply alienated from the original owner and transferred into the property of someone else without undue complications: "the transference of one's property to someone else is its alienation" (Kant)." (The complications, at an earlier stage, were of an "external", political nature, manifest in the taboos and prohibitions of feudal society which declared certain things to be "inalienable"; with the successful abolition of such taboos the complications vanished automatically.) The living person, however, first had to be reified – converted into a thing, into a mere piece of property for the duration of the contract – before it could be mastered by its new owner. Reified in the same sense of "verdingen" in which Kant's younger contemporary Wieland uses the word in translating a line from Homer's Odyssey: "Stranger, will you become my thing, my servant?" (The current English translation, by contrast, characteristically reads like this: "Stranger," he said, "I wonder how you'd like to work for me if I took you on as my man, somewhere on an upland farm, at a proper wage of course.)
The principal function of the much glorified "contract" was, therefore, the introduction – in place of the rigidly fixed feudal relations – of a new form of "fixity" which guaranteed the right of the new master to manipulate the allegedly "free" human beings as things, as objects without will, once they have "freely elected" to enter into the contract in question by "alienating at will that which belonged to them".
Thus human alienation was accomplished through turning everything "into alienable, saleable objects in thrall to egoistic need and huckstering. Selling is the practice of alienation. Just as man, so long as he is engrossed in religion, can only objectify his essence by an alien and fantastic being; so under the sway of egoistic need, he can only affirm himself and produce objects in practice by subordinating his products and his own activity to the domination of an alien entity, and by attributing to them the significance of an alien entity, namely money." [Marx, On the Jewish Question] Reification of one's person and thus the "freely chosen" acceptance of a new servitude – in place of the old feudal, politically established and regulated form of servitude – could advance on the basis of a "civil society" characterised by the rule of money that opened the floodgates for the universal "servitude to egoistic need" (Knechtschaft des egoistischen Bedürfnisses).
Alienation is therefore characterised by the universal extension of "saleability" (i.e. the transformation of everything into commodity); by the conversion of human beings into "things" so that they could appear as commodities on the market (in other words: the "reification" of human relations), and by the fragmentation of the social body into "isolated individuals" (vereinzelte Einzelnen) who pursued their own limited, particularistic aims "in servitude to egoistic need", making a virtue out of their selfishness in their cult of privacy. No wonder that Goethe protested "alles vereinzelte ist verwerflich", "all isolated particularity is to be rejected", advocating in opposition to "selfish isolationism" some form of "community with others like oneself" in order to be able to make a common "front against the world." Equally no wonder that in the circumstances Goethe's recommendations had to remain utopian postulates. For the social order of "civil society" could sustain itself only on the basis of the conversion of the various areas of human experience into "saleable commodities", and it could follow relatively undisturbed its course of development only so long as this universal marketing of all facets of human life, including the most private ones, did not reach its point of saturation.

3. Historicity and the Rise of Anthropology

"Alienation" is an eminently historical concept. If man is alienated, he must be alienated from something, as a result of certain causes– the interplay of events and circumstances in relation to man as the subject of this alienation – which manifest themselves in a historical framework. Similarly, the "transcendence of alienation" is an inherently historical concept which envisages the successful accomplishment of a process leading to a qualitatively different state of affairs.
Needless to say, the historical character of certain concepts is no guarantee whatsoever that the intellectual edifices which make use of them are historical. Often, as a matter of fact, mystifications set in at one stage or another of the analysis. Indeed, if the concept of alienation is abstracted form the concrete socio-economical process, a mere semblance of historicity may be substituted for a genuine understanding of the complex factors involved in the historical process. (It is an essential function of mythologies to transfer the fundamental socio-historical problems of human development to an atemporal plane, and the Judeo-Christian treatment of the problematics of alienation is no exception to the general rule. Ideologically more topical is the case of some twentieth century theories of alienation in which concepts like "world-alienation" fulfil the function of negating the genuine historical categories and of replacing them by sheer mystification.)
Nevertheless it is an important characteristic of intellectual history that those philosophers achieved the greatest results in grasping the manifold complexities of alienation – before Marx: Hegel above all the others – who approached this problematics in an adequate historical manner. This correlation is even more significant in view of the fact that the point holds the other way round as well: namely those philosophers succeeded in elaborating a historical approach to the problems of philosophy who were aware of the problematics of alienation, and to the extent to which they were so. (It is by no means accidental that the greatest representative of the Scottish "historical school", Adam Ferguson had at the centre of his thought the concept of "civil society" which was absolutely crucial for a socio-historically concrete understanding of the problematics of alienation.) The ontological determinants of this intellectual interrelationship need to retain our attention here for a moment.
It goes without saying, the development in question is by no means a simple linear one. At certain points of crisis in history when the possible socio-historical alternatives are still relatively open – a relative openness which creates a temporary "ideological vacuum" that favours the appearance of utopian ideologies – it is relatively easier to identify the objective characteristics of the emerging social order than at a later stage by which time the needs that bring into life in the field of ideology the "uncritical positivism" we are all too familiar with have produced a self-perpetuating uniformity. We have seen the profound but hopelessly "premature" insights of a Thomas Münzer into the nature of developments hardly perceivable on the horizon, and he did not stand alone, of course, in this respect. Similarly, at a much earlier age, Aristotle gave a surprisingly concrete historical analysis of the inherent interconnection between religious beliefs and politico-social as well as family relations: "The family is the association established by nature for the supply of man's every day wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas 'companions of the cupboard', and by Epimenides the Cretan, 'companions of the manger'. But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be 'sucked with the same milk'. And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians still are. Every family is ruled by the eldest and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood. As Homer says: 'Each one gives law to his children and to his wives.'
For they lived dispersedly, as was the manner in ancient times. Wherefore men say that the Gods have a king, because they themselves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For they imagine, not only the forms of the Gods, but their ways of life to be like their own.
Many hundreds of years had to pass by before philosophers could reach again a similar degree of concreteness and historical insight. And yet, Aristotle's insight remained an isolated one: it could not become the cornerstone of a coherent philosophy of history. In Aristotle's thought the concrete historical insights were embedded in a thoroughly ahistorical general conception. The main reason for this was an overriding ideological need which prevented Aristotle from applying a historical principle to the analysis of society as a whole. In accordance with this ideological need it had to be "proved" that slavery was a social order in complete conformity with nature itself. Such a conception – formulated by Aristotle in opposition to those who challenged the established social relations carried with it bogus concepts like "freedom by nature" and "slavery by nature". For, according to Aristotle, "there is a great difference between the rule over freemen and the rule over slaves, as there is between slavery by nature and freedom by nature".
The introduction of the concept of "slavery by nature" has far-reaching consequences for Aristotle's philosophy. History in it is confined to the sphere of "freedom" which is, however, restricted by the concept of "freedom by nature". Indeed, since slavery must be fixed eternally – a need adequately reflected in the concept of slavery "by nature"– there can be no question of a genuine historical conception. The concept of "slavery by nature" carries with it its counterpart: "freedom by nature", and thus the fiction of slavery determined by nature destroys the historicity of the sphere of "freedom" as well. The partiality of the ruling class prevails, postulating its own rule as a hierarchial-structural superiority determined (and sanctioned) by nature. (The partiality of Judaism – the mythology of the "chosen people" etc. – expresses the same kind of negation of history as regards the fundamental structural relations of class society.) The principle of historicity is therefore inevitably degraded into pseudo-historicity. The model of a repetitive cycle is projected upon society as a whole: no matter what happens, the fundamental structural relations determined by "nature" are said to be always reproduced, not as a matter of empirical fact, but as that of an a priori necessity. Movement, accordingly, is confined to an increase in "size" and "complexity" of the communities analysed by Aristotle, and changes in both "size" and "complexity" are circumscribed by the concepts of "freedom by nature" and "slavery by nature", i.e. by the postulated a priori necessity of reproducing the same structure of society. Thus the insoluble social contradictions of his days lead even a great philosopher like Aristotle to operate with self-contradictory concepts like "freedom by nature", imposed on him by the entirely fictitious concept of "slavery by nature", in direct agreement with the prevailing ideological need. And when he makes a further attempt at rescuing the historicity of the sphere of "freedom by nature", declaring that the slave is not a man but a mere thing, a "talking tool", he finds himself right in the middle of another contradiction: for the tools of man have a historical character, and certainly not one fixed by nature. Because of the partiality of his position, the dynamic, dialectically changing laws of social totality must remain a mystery to Aristotle. His postulate of a natural "duality" directly rooted, as we have seen, in the ideological need of turning partiality into universality – make it impossible for him to perceive the manifold varieties of social phenomena as specific manifestations of an inherently interconnected, dynamically changing socio-historical totality.
The interrelationship between an awareness of alienation and the historicity of a philosopher's conception is a necessary one because a fundamental ontological question: the "nature of man" ("human essence", etc.) is the common point of reference of both. This fundamental ontological question is: what is in agreement with "human nature" and what constitutes an "alienation" from the "human essence"? Such a question cannot be answered ahistorically without being turned into an irrational mystification of some kind. On the other hand, a historical approach to the question of "human nature" inevitably carries with it some diagnosis of "alienation" or "reification", related to the standard or "ideal" by which the whole issue is being assessed.
The point of central importance is, however, whether or not the question of "human nature" is assessed within an implicitly or explicitly "egalitarian" framework of explanation. If for some reason the fundamental equality of all men is not recognised, that is ipso facto tantamount to negating historicity, for in that case it becomes necessary to rely on the magic device of "nature" (or, in religious conceptions, "divine order" etc.) in the philosopher's explanation of historically established inequalities. (This issue is quite distinct from the question of the ideological justification of existing inequalities. The latter is essential for explaining the socio-historical determinants of a philosopher's system but quite irrelevant to the logically necessary interrelationship of a set of concepts of a particular system. Here we are dealing with the structural relations of concepts which prevail within the general framework of a system already in existence. This is why the "structural" and the "historical" principles cannot be reduced into one another except by vulgarisers – but constitute a dialectical unity.) The philosopher's specific approach to the problem of equality, the particular limitations and shortcomings of his concept of "human nature", determine the intensity of his historical conception as well as the character of his insight into the real nature of alienation. This goes not only for those thinkers who – for reasons already seen – failed to produce significant achievements in this regard but also for positive examples, from the representatives of the Scottish "historical school" to Hegel and Feuerbach.
"Anthropological orientation" without genuine historicity well as the necessary conditions of the latter, of course – amounts to nothing more than mystification, whatever socio-historical determinants might have brought it into existence. The "organic" conception of society, for instance, according to which every element of the social complex must fulfil its "proper function" i.e. a function predetermined by "nature" or by "divine providence" in accordance with some rigid hierarchial pattern – is a totally ahistorical and inverted projection of the characteristics of an established social order upon an alleged "organism" (the human body, for instance) which is supposed to be the "natural model" of all society. (A great deal of modern "functionalism" is, mutatis mutandis, an attempt at liquidating historicity. But we cannot enter here into the discussion of that matter.) In this regard it is doubly significant that in the development of modern thought the concept of alienation acquired an increasing importance parallel to the rise of a genuine, historically founded philosophical anthropology. On the one hand this trend represented a radical opposition to the mystifications of medieval pseudo-anthropology, and on the other it provided the positive organising centre of an incomparably more dynamic understanding of the social processes than had been possible before.
Well before Feuerbach recognised the distinction between "true: that is anthropological and false: that is the theological essence of religion" [Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity] religion was conceived as a historical phenomenon and the assessment of its nature was subordinated to the question of the historicity of man. In such a conception it became possible to envisage the supersession of religion insofar as mythology and religion were assigned only to a particular stage – though a necessary one – of the universal history of mankind, conceived on the model of man progressing from childhood to maturity. Vico distinguished three stages in the development of humanity (of humanity making its own history): (1) the age of Gods; (2) the age of heroes; and (3) "the age of men in which all men recognised themselves as equal in human nature". Herder, at a later stage, defined mythology as "personified nature or dressed-up wisdom" and spoke of the "childhood", "adolescence" and "manhood" of mankind, limiting even in poetry the possibilities of myth-creation under the circumstances of the third stage.
But it was Diderot who spelled out the socio-political secret of the whole trend by emphasising that once man succeeded in his critique of "the majesty of heaven" he will not shy away for long from an assault on the other oppressor of mankind: "the worldly sovereignty", for these two stand or fall together. And it was by no means accidental that it was Diderot who reached this degree of clarity in political radicalism. For he did not stop at Vico's remarkable but rather abstract statement according to which "all men are equal in human nature". He went on asserting, with the highest degree of social radicalism known among the great figures of French Enlightenment, that "if the day-worker is miserable, the nation is miserable". Not surprisingly, therefore, it was Diderot who succeeded to the highest degree in grasping the problematics of alienation, well ahead of his contemporaries, indicating as basic contradictions "the distinction of yours and mine", the opposition between "one's own particular utility and the general good" and the subordination of the "general good to one's own particular good." And he went even further, emphasising that these contradictions result in the production of "superfluous wants", "imaginary goods" and "artificial needs"– almost the same terms as those used by Marx in describing the "artificial needs and imaginary appetites" produced by capitalism. The fundamental difference was, however, that while Marx could refer to a specific social movement as the "material force" behind his philosophical programme, Diderot had to content himself – because of his "premature situation"– with the viewpoint of a far-away utopian community in which such contradictions as well as their consequences are unknown. And, of course, in accordance with his utopian standpoint related to the wretched working conditions of his day, Diderot could not see any solution except thelimitation of needs which should enable man to liberate himself from the crippling tedium of work, allowing him to stop, to rest and to finish working. Thus an appeal is made to the utopian fiction of a "natural" limitation of wants because the type of labour which predominates in the given form of society is inherently anti-human, and "fulfilment" appears as an absence of activity, not as enriched and enriching, humanly fulfilling activity, not as self-fulfilment in activity. That which is supposed to be "natural" and "human" appears as something idyllic and fixed (by nature) and consequently as something to be jealously protected against corruption from "outside", under the enlightening guidance of "reason". Since the "material force" that could turn theory into social practice is missing, theory must convert itself into its own solution: into an utopian advocacy of the power of reason. At this point we can clearly see that even a Diderot's remedy is a far cry from the solutions advocated and envisaged by Marx.
Marx's radical superiority to all who preceded him is evident in the coherent dialectical historicity of his theory, in contrast to the weaknesses of his predecessors who at one point or another were all forced to abandon the actual ground of history for the sake of some imaginary solution to the contradictions they may have perceived but could not master ideologically and intellectually. In this context Marx's profound insight into the true relationship between anthropology and ontology is of the greatest importance. For there is one way only of producing an all-embracing and in every respect consistent historical theory, namely by positively situating anthropology within an adequate general ontological framework. If, however, ontology is subsumed under anthropology – as often happened not only in the distant past but in our own time as well in that case one-sidedly grasped anthropological principles which should be historically explained become self-sustaining axioms of the system in question and undermine its historicity. In this respect Feuerbach represents a retrogression in relation to Hegel whose philosophical approach avoided on the whole the pitfall of dissolving ontology within anthropology. Consequently Hegel anticipated to a much greater extent than Feuerbach the Marxian grasp of history, although even Hegel could only find "the abstract, logical, speculative expression for the movement of history".
In contrast to both the Hegelian abstractness and the Feuerbachian retrogression in historicity Marx discovered the dialectical relationship between materialist ontology and anthropology, emphasising that "man's feelings, passions, etc., are not merely anthropological phenomena in the [narrower] sense, but truly ontological affirmations of essential being (of nature). . . . Only through developed industry i.e. through the medium of private property – does the ontological essence of human passion come to be both in its totality and in its humanity; the science of man is therefore itself a product of man's establishment of himself by practical activity. The meaning of private property – liberated from its estrangement – is the existence of essential objects for man, both as objects of enjoyment and as objects of activity". We shall discuss some aspects of this complex of problems later in this chapter, as well as in chapter IV, VI, and VII. What is particularly important to stress at this point is that the specific anthropological factor ("humanity") cannot be grasped in its dialectical historicity unless it is conceived on the basis of the historically developing ontological totality("nature") to which it ultimately belongs. A failure to identify the adequate dialectical relationship between ontological totality and anthropological specificity carries with it insoluble contradictions. In the first place it leads to postulating some fixed "human essence" as the philosopher's "original datum", and consequently to the ultimate liquidation of all historicity (from Feuerbach to some recent theories of "structuralism"). Equally damaging is another contradiction which means that pseudo-historical and "anthropological" considerations are applied to the analysis of certain social phenomena whose comprehension would require a non-anthropomorphic – but of course dialectical – concept of causality. To give an example: no conceivable "anthropological hypothesis" could in the least help to understand the "natural laws" which govern the productive processes of capitalism in their long historical development; on the contrary, they could only lead to sheer mystifications. It might seem to be inconsistent with Marx's historical materialism when we are told in Capital that "The nature of capital is the same in its developed as in its undeveloped form". (Some people might even use this passage in support of their interpretation of Marx's as a "structuralist" thinker.) A more careful reading would, however, reveal that, far from being inconsistent, Marx indicates here the ontological ground of a coherent historical theory. A later passage, in which he analyses capitalist production, makes this clearer:
"The principle which it [capitalism] pursued, of resolving each process into its constituent movements, without any regard to their possible execution by the hand of man, created the new modern science of technology. The varied, apparently unconnected, and petrified forms of the industrial processes now resolved themselves into so many conscious and systematic applications of natural science to the attainment of given useful effects. Technology also discovered the few main fundamental forms of motion, which, despite the diversity of the instruments used, arenecessarily taken by every productive action of the human body..."
As we can see, the whole issue turns on understanding the natural basis (the general laws of causality, etc.) of specifically human historicity. Without an adequate grasp of this natural basis the "science of man" is simply inconceivable because everything gets ultimately dissolved into relativism. The "anthropological principle", therefore, must be put in its proper place, within the general framework of a comprehensive historical ontology. In more precise terms, any such principle must be transcended in the direction of a complex dialectical social ontology.
If this is not achieved – if, that is, the anthropological principle remains narrowly anthropological – there can be no hope whatsoever of understanding a process, for instance, which is determined by its own laws of movement and imposes on human beings its own patterns of productive procedure "without any regard to their possible execution by the hand of man". Similarly, nothing can be understood about the alienating "nature of capital" in terms of the fictitious postulates of an "egoistic human nature" so dear to the heart of the political economists. For the "sameness" of capital in both its "undeveloped" and "developed form"– a sameness which applies only to its "nature" and not to its form and mode of existence – must be explained in terms of the most comprehensive laws of a historical ontology founded on nature. The socially dominating role of capital in modern history is self-evident. But only the fundamental laws of social ontology can explain how it is possible that under certain conditions a given "nature" (the nature of capital) should unfold and fully realise itself – in accordance with its objective nature – by following its own inner laws of development, from its undeveloped form to its form of maturity, "without any regard to man". Anthropological hypotheses, no matter how subtle, are a priori non-starters in this respect. Equally, a simple socio-historical hypothesis is of no use. For the issue at stake is precisely to explain what lies at the roots of historical development as its ultimate ground of determination, and therefore it would be sheer circularity to indicate the changing historical circumstances as the fundamental cause of development of capital itself. Capital, as everything else in existence, has – it goes without saying – its historical dimension. But this historical dimension is categorically different from an ontological substance.
What is absolutely essential is not to confound ontological continuity with some imaginary anthropological fixity. The ultimate ground of persistence of the problematics of alienation in the history of ideas, from its Judeo-Christian beginnings to its formulations by Marx's immediate predecessors, is the relative ontological continuity inherent in the unfolding of capital in accordance with its inner laws of growth from its "undeveloped" to its "developed form". To turn this relative ontological continuity into some fictitious characteristic of "human nature" means that an elucidation of the actual processes which underlie these developments is a priori impossible. If, however, one realises that the ontological continuity in question concerns the "nature of capital", it becomes possible to envisage a transcendence (Aufhebung) of alienation, provided that the issue is formulated as a radicalontological transformation of the social structure as a whole, and not confined to the partial measure of a political expropriation of capital (which is simply a necessary first step in the direction of the Marxian transcendence of alienation). Only if some basic conditions of an ontological transcendence are satisfied and to the extent to which they are so – i.e. insofar as there is an effective break in the objective ontological continuity of capital in its broadest Marxian sense – can we speak of a qualitatively new phase of development: the beginning of the "true history of mankind". Without this ontological frame of reference there can be no consistent historical theory; only some form of historical relativism instead, devoid of an objective measure of advance and consequently prone to subjectivism and voluntarism, to the formulation of "Messianic programmes" coupled with an arbitrary anticipation of their realisation in the form of idealistic postulates.
Here we can clearly see the historical importance of the young Marx's discovery concerning the dialectical relationship between ontology and anthropology: it opened up the road to the elaboration of Marx's great theoretical synthesis and to the practical realisation of the revolutionary programmes based on it. His predecessors, as a rule, turned their limited ontological insights into elements of a curious mixture of anthropological-moral-ideological preaching. Henry Home (Lord Kames), for instance – not a negligible figure but one of the greatest representatives of the Scottish historical school of Enlightenment – wrote the following lines: "Activity is essential to a social being: to a selfish being it is of no use, after procuring the means of living. A selfish man, who by his opulence has all the luxuries of life at command, and dependents without number, has no occasion for activity. Hence it may fairly be inferred, that were man destined by providence to be entirely selfish, he would be disposed by his constitution to rest, and never would be active when he could avoid it. The natural activity of man, therefore, is to me evidence, that his Maker did not intend him to be purely a selfish being." Since the social grounds of this criticism cannot be spelled out – because of the contradiction inherent in it, i.e. because of the "selfishness" necessarily associated with the social class represented by Henry Home – everything must remain abstract-anthropological; worse: even this abstract criticism in the end must be watered down by the terms "entirely" and "purely selfish". A new form of conservatism appears on the horizon to take the place of the old one, appealing to the anthropological model of "Enlightened Man": this "natural" realisation of Triumphant Reason. "Even those who are most prone to persecution, begin to hesitate. Reason, resuming her sovereign authority, will banish it [i.e. persecution] altogether . . . within the next century it will be thought strange, that persecution should have prevailed among social beings. It will perhaps even be doubted, whether it ever was seriously put into practice." And again: "Reason at last prevailed, after much opposition: the absurdity of a whole nation being slaves to a weak mortal, remarkable perhaps for no valuable qualification, became apparent to all." But the unhistorical and categorical criteria of "rational" and "absurd" rebound on this approach when it has to face some new problems. This is when its conservatism comes to the fore: "It was not difficult to foresee the consequences [of the general assault on the old order]: down fell the whole fabric, the sound parts with the infirm. And man now laugh currently at the absurd notions of their forefathers, without thinking either of being patriots, or of being good subjects." So just as much as one's own selfishness had to be distinguished from the "purely selfish" and "entirely selfish" behaviour of one's opponents, now the "legitimately" used criterion of "absurdity" has to be opposed to its "abuse" by those who carry it "too far", endangering the "sound parts" of the "social fabric". "Reason" is turned into a blank cheque, valid not only retrospectively but timelessly, sustaining the partial interest of its bearers, and destroying the earlier historical achievements. The insoluble dilemma of the whole movement of the Enlightenment is expressed in this mode of arguing, well before it assumes a dramatic political form in Burke's violent attacks on the French Revolution in the name of the continuity of the "sound social fabric". A dilemma determined by the objective contradiction of subordinating the general interest to the partial interest of a social class.
Thus no sooner are the achievements of the Enlightenment realised than they are liquidated. Everything must fit the narrowly and ambiguously defined model of "Rational Man". Only those aspects of alienation are recognised which can be classified as "alien to Reason", with all the actual and potential arbitrariness involved in such an abstract criterion. Historicity reaches only as far as is compatible with the social position that requires these vague and abstract criteria as its ground of criticism, for the acknowledgment of human equality is, on the whole, confined to the abstract legal sphere. The same goes for the achievements in anthropology: old taboos are successfully attacked in the name of reason, but the understanding of the objective laws of movement, situating the specifically human factor within a dialectically grasped comprehensive natural framework, is hampered by the preconceived ideas expressed in the self-idealising model of "Rational Man".
The reasons for this ultimate failure were very complex. Its ideological determinants, rooted in a social position dense with social contradictions that had to remain veiled from the thinkers concerned, have been mentioned already. Equally important was the fact that the underlying economic trends were still far from their point of maturity, which made it virtually impossible to gain an adequate insight into their real nature. (Marx could conceive his theory from the position of a qualitatively higher historical vantage point.) But the crucial point was that the philosophers of the Enlightenment could only take – at best – some tentative first steps in the direction of the elaboration of a dialectical method but were unable to grasp the fundamental laws of a materialist dialectic: their social and historical position prevented them from doing so. (On the other hand Hegel succeeded later in identifying the central concepts of dialectics, but in an "abstract, speculative, idealist fashion".) This meant that they could not solve the dilemma inherent in historicised anthropology and anthropologically oriented history. For, paradoxically, history and anthropology helped one another up to a point, but turned into fetters for each other beyond that critical point. Only a materialist dialectic could have shown a way out of the impasse of this rigid opposition. For the want of such a dialectic, however, the historical principle was either dissolved into the pseudo-historicity of some repetitive cycle, or tended towards its own absolutisation in the form of historical relativism. The only possible solution which could have transcended both the "anthropological principle" and relativistic "historicism" would have been a synthesis of history and anthropology in the form of a comprehensive, materialist, dialectical ontology – having the concept of "self-developing human labour" (or "man's establishment of himself by practical activity") for its centre of reference. The revolutionising idea of such a synthesis, however, did not appear in the history of human thought before the sketching of Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.

4. The End of "Uncritical Positivism"

The middle of the eighteenth century marked a turning point in the various approaches to the problems of alienation. As the contradictions of the emerging new society started to become more visible, the earlier "uncritical positivism" that characterised not only the school of "Natural Law" but also the first classics of Political Economy, ran into insurmountable difficulties. In the previous period the concept of alienation has been used in regard to socio-economic and political phenomena in a thoroughly positive sense, insisting on the desirability of the alienation of land, political power, etc., on the positivity of "profit upon alienation", on the rightfulness of procuring interest without alienating capital, on selling one's labour, on reifying one's person, and so on. This one-sided positivism could not be maintained, however, once the crippling effects of the capitalistic mode of production based on the general diffusion of alienation started to erupt also in the form of social unrest that did not shy away from the violent destruction of the much glorified and idealised "rational" machinery of increasingly larger scale manufacture.
The crisis in the middle of the eighteenth century which brought into life the various critical theories was not, it goes without saying, an internal crisis of rising capitalism. It was, rather, a social crisis caused by a drastic transition from the antiquated feudal-artisan mode of production to a new one which was very far indeed from reaching the limits of its productive capabilities. This explains the essentially uncritical attitude towards the central categories of the new economic system even in the writings of those who criticised the social and cultural aspects of capitalistic alienation. Later on, when the inherent connection between the social and cultural manifestations of alienation and the economic system became more evident, criticism tended to diminish, instead of being intensified. The bourgeoisie which in the writings of its best representatives subjected some vital aspects of its own society to a devastating criticism, could not go, of course, as far as extending this criticism to the totality of capitalistic society. The social standpoint of criticism had to be radically changed first for that and, as we all know, a century had to elapse before this radical reorientation of social criticism could be accomplished.
There is no space here for a detailed systematic survey of the rise of social criticism. Our attention, again, must be confined to a few central figures who played an important role in identifying the problematics of alienation before Marx. We have already seen Diderot's achievements in this respect. His contemporary, Rousseau was equally important, though in a very different way. Rousseau's system is dense with contradictions, more so perhaps than any other in the whole movement of the Enlightenment. He himself warns us often enough that we should not draw premature conclusions from his statements, before carefully considering, that is, all the facets of his complex arguments. Indeed an attentive reading amply confirms that he did not exaggerate about the complexities. But this is not the full story. His complaints about being systematically misunderstood were only partially justified. One-sided though his critics may have been in their reading of his texts (containing as they did numerous qualifications that were often ignored), the fact remains that no reading whatsoever, however careful and sympathetic, could eliminate the inherent contradictions of his system. (Needless to say; we are not talking about logical contradictions. The formal consistency of Rousseau's thought is as impeccable as that of any great philosopher's, considering the non-abstract character of his terms of analysis. The contradictions are in the social substance of his thought, as we shall see in a moment. In other words, they are necessary contradictions, inherent in the very nature of a great philosopher's socially and historically limited standpoint.)
There are very few philosophers before Marx who would stand a comparison with Rousseau in social radicalism. He writes in his Discourse on Political Economy– in a passage he later repeats, stressing its central importance, in one of his Dialogues– that the advantages of the "social confederacy" are heavily weighed down on the side of the rich, against the poor:
"for this [the social confederacy] provides a powerful protection for the immense possessions of the rich, and hardly leaves the poor man in quiet possession of the cottage he builds with his own hands. Are not all the advantages of society for the rich and powerful? Are not all lucrative posts in their hands? Are not all privileges and exemptions reserved for them alone? Is not the public authority always on their side? If a man of eminence robs his creditors, or is guilty of other knaveries, is he not always assured of impunity? Are not the assaults, acts of violence, assassinations, and even murders committed by the great, matters that are hushed up in a few months, and of which nothing more is thought? But if a great man himself is robbed or insulted, the whole police force is immediately in motion, and woe even to innocent persons who chance to be suspected. If he has to pass through any dangerous road, the country is up in arms to escort him. If the axle-tree of his chaise breaks, everybody flies to his assistance. If there is a noise at his door, he speaks but a word, and all is silent. . . . Yet all this respect costs him not a farthing: it is the rich man's right, and not what he buys with his wealth. How different is the case of the poor man! The more humanity owes him, the more society denies him ... he always bears the burden which his richer neighbour has influence enough to get exempted from . . . all gratuitous assistance is denied to the poor when they need it, just because they cannot pay for it. I look upon any poor man as totally undone, if he has the misfortune to have an honest heart, a fine daughter and a powerful neighbour. Another no less important fact is that the losses of the poor are much harder to repair than these of the rich, and that the difficulty of acquisition is always greater in proportion as there is more need for it. 'Nothing comes out of nothing', is as true of life as in physics: money is the seed of money, and the first guinea is sometimes more difficult to acquire than the second million.... The terms of the social compact between these two estates of man may be summed up in a few words: 'You have need of me, because I am rich and you are poor. We will therefore come to an agreement. I will permit you to have the honour of serving me, on condition that you bestow on me the little you have left, in return for the pains I shall take to command you.'
If this is the case, it cannot be surprising that the menacing shadow of an inevitable revolution appears in Rousseau's thought:
"Most peoples, like most men, are docile only in youth; as they grow old they become incorrigible. When once customs have become established and prejudices inveterate, it is dangerous and useless to attempt their reformation; the people, like the foolish and cowardly patients who rave at sight of the doctor, can no longer bear that any one should lay hands on its faults to remedy them. There are indeed times in the history of States when, just as some kinds of illness turn men's heads and make them forget the past, periods of violence and revolutions do to people what these crises do to individuals: horror of the past takes the place of forgetfulness, and the State, set on fire by civil wars, was born again, so to speak, from its ashes, and takes on anew, fresh from the jaws of death, the vigour of youth. .. The empire of Russia will aspire to conquer Europe, and will itself be conquered. The Tartars, its subjects or neighbours, will become its masters and ours, by a revolution which I regard as inevitable. Indeed, all the kings of Europe are working in concert to hasten its coming."
Yet the same Rousseau also asserts, talking about himself, in his Third Dialogue, that "he always insisted on the preservation of the existing institutions". And when he sets out the terms of his educational experiment, he writes: "The poor man has no need of education. The education of his own station is forced upon him, he can have no other; the education received by the rich man from his own station is least fitted for himself and for society. Moreover, a natural education should fit a man for any position. ... Let us choose our scholar among the rich; we shall at least have made another man; the poor may come to manhood without our help. (Accordingly, in the utopian community of his Nouvelle Héloîse there is no education for the poor.) The idealisation of nature thus, paradoxically, turned into an idealisation of the poor man's wretched conditions: the established order is left unchallenged; the poor man's subjection to the well-to-do is maintained, even if the mode of "commanding" becomes more "enlightened". Thus in the end Rousseau is justified in his assertion about his insistence "on the preservation of the existing institutions", notwithstanding his statements about social injustice and on the inevitability of a violent revolution.
But this idealisation of nature is not some intellectual "original cause. It is the expression of a contradiction unknown to the philosopher himself, carrying with it a stalemate, a static conception in the last analysis: a purely imaginary transference of the problems perceived in society onto the plane of the moral "ought" which envisages their solution in terms of a "moral education" of men. The fundamental contradiction in Rousseau's thought lies in his incommensurably sharp perception of the phenomena of alienation and the glorification of their ultimate cause. This is what turns his philosophy in the end into a monumental moral sermon that reconciles all contradictions in the ideality of the moral sphere. (Indeed the more drastic the cleavage between ideality and reality, the more evident it becomes to the philosopher that moral "ought" is the only way of coping with it. In this respect – as in so many others as well – Rousseau exercises the greatest influence on Kant, anticipating, not in words but in general conception, Kant's principle of the "primacy of Practical Reason".)
Rousseau denounces alienation in many of its manifestations:
(1) He insists – in opposition to the traditional approaches to the "Social Contract"– that man cannot alienate his freedom. For "to alienate is to give or to sell . . . but for what does a people sell itself? ... Even if each man could alienate himself, he could not alienate his children: they are born man and free; their liberty belongs to them, and no one but they has the right to dispose of it." (Moreover, he qualifies this statement by adding that there can be only one rightful way of disposing of one's inalienable right to liberty: "each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody" and therefore "in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains voters, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life, and its will". Which means, in Rousseau's eyes, that the individual has not lost anything by contracting out of his "natural liberty"; on the contrary, he gains "civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses". Furthermore, man also "acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty." As we can see, the argument progresses from reality to morality. By the time we reach the point of the Social Contract, we are confronted in the shape of the much idealised "assembly"– with a "moral construction." The collective "moral body", its "unity and common identity" etc., are moral postulates of a would-be legitimation of the bourgeois system. The moral construction of the "assembly" is necessary precisely because Rousseau cannot envisage any real (i.e. effective material) solution to the underlying contradictions, apart from appealing to the idea of an "obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves" in the general political framework of the "assembly" which radically transcends, in an ideal fashion, the "bad reality" of the established order while leaving it intact in reality.
(2) A corollary of the previous point is the insistence on the inalienability and indivisibility of Sovereignty. According to Rousseau Sovereignty "being nothing less than the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated, and the Sovereign, who is no less than a collective being, cannot be represented except by himself". Again it is clear that we are confronted with a moral postulate generated in Rousseau's system by the recognition that "the particular will tends, by its very nature, to partiality, while the general will tends to equality", and by the philosopher's inability to envisage a solution in any other terms than those of a moral "ought". For while the particular will's tendency towards partiality is an ontological reality, the "general will's tendency to equality" is, in the given historical situation, a mere postulate. And only a further moral postulate can "transcend" the contradiction between the actual, ontological "is" and the moral "ought" of an equality inherent in the "general will". (Of course in Rousseau's structure of thought this insoluble contradiction is hidden beneath the self-evidence of a dual tautology, namely that "the particular will is partial" and "the general will is universal". Rousseau's greatness, however, breaks through the crust of this dual tautology paradoxically by defining "universality"– in an apparently inconsistent form – as "equality". The same "inconsistency" is retained by Kant, mutatis mutandis, in his criterion of moral universality.)
(3) A constantly recurring theme of Rousseau's thought is man's alienation from nature. This is a fundamental synthesising idea in Rousseau's system, a focal point of his social criticism, and has many aspects. Let us briefly sum up its crucial points.
(a)"Everything is good when it leaves the hands of the Creator of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man" writes Rousseau in the opening sentence of Emile. It is civilisation which corrupts man, separating him from nature, and introducing "from outside" all the vices which are "alien to man's constitution". The result is the destruction of the "original goodness of man".
(b) In this development – away from nature by means of the vehicle of civilisation – we can see a "rapid march towards the perfection of society and towards the deterioration of the species," i.e. this alienated form of development is characterised by the grave contradiction between society and the human species.
(c) Man is dominated by his institutions to such an extent that the sort of life he leads under the conditions of institutionalisation cannot be called by any other name than slavery : "Civilised man is born into slavery and he lives and dies in it: ... he is in the chains of our institutions."
(d) Vice and evil flourish in large towns and the only possible antidote to this alienation, country life, is increasingly under the dominion of the big towns: "industry and commerce draw all the money from the country into the capitals ... the richer the city the poorer the country." Thus the dynamic vehicles of capitalistic alienation – industry and commerce – bring under their spell nature and country life, ever intensifying the contradiction between town and country.
(e) The acquisition of artificial needs and the forced growth of "useless desires" characterises the life of both the individuals and the modern State. "If we ask how the needs of a State grow, we shall find they generally arise, like the wants of individuals, less from any real necessity than from the increase of useless desires." Corruption in this sense starts at an early age. The natural impulses and passions of the child are suppressed and replaced by artificial modes of behaviour. The result is the production of an "artificial being" in place of the natural, "original" human being.
As we can see, in all these points the penetrating diagnosis of prevailing social trends is mixed with an idealisation of nature as the necessary premise of the Rousseauian form of criticism. We shall return to the complex determinants of this approach in a moment.
(4) In his denunciation of the roots of alienation, Rousseau attributes to money and wealth the principal responsibility "in this century of calculators". He insists that one should not alienate oneself by selling oneself, because this means turning the human person into a mercenary. We have already seen that according to Rousseau "to alienate is to give or to sell". Under certain special conditions – e.g. in a patriotic war when one is involved in defending one's own country – it is permissible to alienate oneself in the form of giving one's life for a noble purpose, but it is absolutely forbidden to alienate oneself in the form of selling oneself: "for all the victories of the early Romans, like those of Alexander, had been won by brave citizens, who were ready, at need, to give their blood in the service of their country, but would never sell it." In accordance with this principle Rousseau insists that the first and absolute condition of an adequate form of education is that the laws of the market should not apply to it. The good tutor is someone who is "not a man for sale" and he is opposed to the prevailing practice that assigns the vitally important function of education "to mercenaries". Human relations at all levels, including the intercourse of nations with each other, are subordinated to the only criterion of deriving profit from the other, and consequently they are impoverished beyond recognition: "Once they know the profit they can derive from each other, what else would they be interested in?"
As we can see even from this inevitably summary account, Rousseau's eye for the manifold phenomena of alienation and dehumanisation is as sharp as no one else's before Marx. The same cannot be said, however, of his understanding of the causes of alienation. In order to explain this paradox we have now to turn our attention. To questions that directly concern the historical novelty of his philosophical answers as well as their limitations. In other words, we have to ask what made possible Rousseau's great positive achievements and which factors determined the illusory character of many of his answers and suggestions.
As we have seen in the previous section, the philosophers' concept of equality was indicative, in the age of the Enlightenment, of the measure of their achievements as regards both a greater historical concreteness and a more adequate understanding of the problematics of alienation. The validity of this general point is clearly displayed in Rousseau's writing. His concept of equality is uncompromisingly radical for his age. He writes in a footnote to The Social Contract: "Under bad governments, this equality is only apparent and illusory; it serves only to keep the pauper in his poverty and the richman in the position he has usurped. In fact, laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing: from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all have something and none too much.
Since, however, the actual social relations stand, as Rousseau himself recognises, in a hostile opposition to his principle of equality, the latter has to be turned into a mere moral postulate "on which the whole social system should rest". In a categorical opposition to the actual state of affairs Rousseau stipulates that "the fundamental compact substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right". Thus the terms of transcendence are abstract. There does not appear on the horizon a material force capable of superseding the relations in which the pauper is kept "in his poverty and the rich man in the position he has usurped". Only a vague reference is made to the desirability of a system in which "all have something and none too much", but Rousseau has no idea how it could be brought into being. This is why everything must be left to the power of ideas, to "education" above all: "moral education"– and to the advocacy of a legal system which presupposes in fact the effective diffusion of Rousseau's moral ideals. And when Rousseau, being the great philosopher he is who does not evade the fundamental issues even if they underline the problematic character of his whole approach, asks the question "how can one adequately educate the educator", he confesses in all sincerity that he does not know the answer. But he emphasises that the characteristics of the good educator ought to be determined by the nature of the functions he ought to fulfil. Thus, again and again, Rousseau's analysis turns out to be an uncompromising reassertion of his radical moral postulates.
However uncompromising is Rousseau's moral radicalism, the fact that his concept of equality is basically a moral-legal concept, devoid of references to a clearly identifiable system of social relations as its material counterpart (the vision of a system in which "all have something and none too much" is not only hopelessly vague but also far from being egalitarian) carries with it the abstract and often rhetorical character of his denunciation of alienation. Thus we can see that while his grasp of the necessity of equality enables him to open many a door that remained closed before him, the limitations of his concept of equality prevent him from pursuing his enquiry to a conclusion that would carry with it the most radical social negation of the whole system of inequalities and dehumanising alienations, in place of the abstract moral radicalism expressed in his postulates.
The same point applies to the role of anthropological references in Rousseau's system. As we have seen, his conception of "healthy man" as a model of social development enables him to treat revolution as the only possible "reinvigorating force" of society under certain conditions. But such an idea is totally inadequate to explain the complexities of the historical situations in which revolutions occur. This we can see from the continuation of Rousseau's analysis of revolutions: "But such events are rare; they are exceptions, the cause of which is always to be found in the particular constitution of the State concerned. They cannot even happen twice to the same people, for it can make itself free as long as it remains barbarous, but not when the civic impulse has lost its vigour. Then disturbances may destroy it, but revolutions cannot mend it: it needs a master, not a liberator. Free peoples, be mindful of this maxim: 'Liberty may be gained, but can never be recovered'." The anthropological model, therefore, paradoxically helps to nullify Rousseau's insight into the nature of social development, by confining revolutions in the analogy of man's cycle of life – to a non-repeatable historical phase. Again it is clear that the ultimate reference is to the sphere of the moral "ought": the whole point about violence and revolutions is made in order to shake men out of their callous indifference so that ("by becoming mindful of his maxim") they can save themselves from the fate of "disturbances and destruction".
But all this does not quite explain Rousseau's system of ideas. It simply shows why – given his concept of equality as well as his anthropological model of social development – Rousseau cannot go beyond a certain point in his understanding of the problematics of alienation. The ultimate premises of his system are: his assumption of private property as the sacred foundation of civil society on the one hand, and the "middle condition" as the only adequate form of distribution of property on the other. He writes: "It is certain that the right of property is the most sacred of all the rights of citizenship, and even more important in some respects than liberty itself; . . . property is the true foundation of civil society, and the real guarantee of the undertakings of citizens: for if property were not answerable for personal actions, nothing would be easier than to evade duties and laugh at the laws." And again: "the general administration is established only to secure individual property, which is antecedent to it." As to the "middle condition", according to Rousseau it "constitutes the genuine strength of the State." (Also, we ought to remember in this connection his insistence that "all ought to have something and none too much", as well as his thundering against the "big towns" which undermine the type of property relations he idealises in many of his writings.) His justification for maintaining this type of private property is that "nothing is more fatal to morality and to the Republic than the continual shifting of rank and fortune among the citizens: such changes are both the proof and the source of a thousand disorders, and overturn and confound everything; for those who were brought up to one thing find themselves destined for another". And he dismisses in a most passionate tone of voice the very idea of abolishing "mine" and "yours": "Must meum and tuum be annihilated, and must we return again to the forests to live among bears? This is a deduction in the manner of my adversaries, which I would as soon anticipate as let them have the shame of drawing."
These ultimate premises of Rousseau's thought determine the concrete articulation of his system and set the limits to his understanding of the problematics of alienation. He recognises that law is made for the protection of private property and that everything else in the order of "civil society"– including "civil liberty"– rests on such foundation. Since, however, he cannot go beyond the horizon of this idealised civil society, he must maintain not only that law is made for the benefit of private property but also that private property is made for the benefit of the law as its sole guarantee. Thus the circle is irrevocably closed; there can be no escape from it. Only those features of alienation can be noticed which are in agreement with the ultimate premises of Rousseau's system. Since private property is taken for granted as the absolute condition of civilised life, only its form of distribution is allowed to be queried, the complex problematics of alienation cannot be grasped at its roots but only in some of its manifestations. As to the question: which of the multifarious manifestations of alienation are identified by Rousseau, the answer is to be sought in the specific form of private property he idealises.
Thus he denounces, for instance, the corruption, dehumanisation, and alienation involved in the cult of money and wealth, but he grasps only thesubjective side of the problem. He insists, rather naively, that the wealth which is being produced is "apparent and illusory; a lot of money and little effect". Thus he displays no real understanding of the immense objective power of money in the "civil society" of expanding capitalism. His dissent from the alienated manifestations of this power is confined to noticing its subjective effects which he believes to be able to neutralise or counteract by means of the moral education he passionately advocates. The same goes for his conception of the "social contract". He repeatedly stresses the importance of offering a "fair exchange" and an "advantageous exchange" to the people involved. The fact that human relations in a society based on the institution of "exchange" cannot conceivably be "fair" and "advantageous" to all, must remain hidden from Rousseau. In the end what is considered to be "fair" is the maintenance of a hierarchical system, a "social order" in which "all places are marked for some people, and every man must be educated for his own place. If a particular person, educated for a certain place, leaves it, he is good for nothing."
What Rousseau opposes is not the alienating power of money and property as such, but a particular mode of their realisation in the form of theconcentration of wealth and all that goes with social mobility produced by the dynamism of expanding and concentrating capital. He rejects theeffects but gives his full support, even if unknowingly, to their causes. Since his discourse, because of the ultimate premises of his system, must be confined to the sphere of effects and manifestations, it must become sentimental, rhetorical and, above all, moralising. The various manifestations of alienation he perceives must be opposed in such a discourse – which necessarily abstracts from the investigation of the ultimate causal determinants – at the level of mere moral postulates: the acceptance of the system of "meum and tuum" together with its corollaries leaves no alternative to this. And precisely because he is operating from the standpoint of the same material base of society whose manifestations he denounces – the social order of private property and "fair and advantageous exchange"– the terms of his social criticism must be intensely and abstractly moralising. Capitalistic alienation as perceived by Rousseau in its particular manifestations – those, that is, which are harmful to the "middle condition"– is considered by him contingent, not necessary, and his radical moral discourse is supposed to provide, the non-contingent alternative so that the people, enlightened by his unmasking of all that is merely "apparent and illusory", would turn their back on the artificial and alienated practices of social life.
These moralising illusions of Rousseau's system, rooted in the idealisation of a way of life allegedly appropriate to the "middle condition" in opposition to the actuality of dynamically advancing and universally alienating large-scale capitalistic production, are necessary illusions. For if the critical enquiry is confined to devising alternatives to the dehumanising effects of a given system of production while leaving its basic premises unchallenged, there remains nothing but the weapon of a moralising-"educational" appeal to individuals. Such an appeal directly invites them to oppose the trends denounced, to resist "corruption", to give up "calculating", to show "moderation", to resist the temptations of "illusory wealth", to follow the "natural course", to restrict their "useless desires", to stop "chasing profit", to refuse "selling themselves", etc., etc. Whether or not they can do all this, is a different matter; in any case they ought to do it. (Kant is truer to the spirit of Rousseau's philosophy than anyone else when he "resolves" its contradictions by asserting with abstract but bold moral radicalism: "ought implies can".) To free the critique of alienation from its abstract and "ought-ridden" character, to grasp these trends in their objective ontological reality and not merely in their subjective reflections in the psychology of individuals, would have required a new social standpoint: one free from the paralysing weight of Rousseau's ultimate premises. Such a radically new socio-historical standpoint was, however, clearly unthinkable in Rousseau's time.
But no matter how problematic are Rousseau's solutions, his approach dramatically announces the inevitable end of the earlier generally prevailing "uncritical positivism". Helped by his standpoint rooted in the rapidly disintegrating "middle condition" at a time of great historical transformation, he powerfully highlights the various manifestations of capitalistic alienation, raising alarm about their extension over all spheres of human life, even if he is unable to identify their causes. Those who come after him cannot ignore or sidestep his diagnoses, though their attitude is often very different from his. Both for his own achievements in grasping many facets of the problematics of alienation and for the great influence of his views on subsequent thinkers Rousseau's historical importance cannot be sufficiently stressed.
There is no space here to follow in any detail the intellectual history of the concept of alienation after Rousseau. We must confine ourselves to a very brief survey of the main phases of development leading to Marx.
The historical succession of these phases can be described as follows:
1. The formulation of a critique of alienation within the framework of general moral postulates (from Rousseau to Schiller).
2. The assertion of a necessary supersession of capitalistic alienation, accomplished speculatively ("Aufhebung" = "a second alienation of human existence = an alienation of alienated existence") i.e. a merely imaginary transcendence of alienation), maintaining an uncritical attitude towards the actual material foundations of society (Hegel).
3. The assertion of the historical supersession of capitalism by socialism expressed in the form of moral postulates intermingled with elements of a realistic critical assessment of the specific contradictions of the established social order (the Utopian Socialists).
The moralising approach to the dehumanising effects of alienation seen in Rousseau persists, on the whole, throughout the eighteenth century. Rousseau's idea of "moral education" is taken up by Kant and is carried, with great consistency, to its logical conclusion and to its highest point of generalisation. Towards the end of the century, however, the sharpening of social contradictions, coupled with the irresistible advancement of capitalistic "rationality", bring out into the open the problematic character of a direct appeal to the "voice of conscience" advocated by the propounders of "moral education". Schiller's efforts at formulating his principles of an "aesthetic education"– which is supposed to be more effective as a floodgate against the rising tide of alienation than a direct moral appeal – reflect this new situation, with its ever intensifying human crisis.
Hegel represents a qualitatively different approach, insofar as he displays a profound insight into the fundamental laws of capitalistic society. We shall discuss Hegel's philosophy and its relation to Marx's achievements in various contexts. At this point let us briefly deal with the central paradox of the Hegelian approach. Namely that while an understanding of the necessity of a supersession of the capitalistic processes is in the foreground of Hegel's thought, Marx finds it imperative to condemn his "uncritical positivism", with full justification, needless to say. The moralising criticism of alienation is fully superseded in Hegel. He approaches the question of a transcendence of alienation not as a matter of moral "ought" but as that of an inner necessity. In other words the idea of an "Aufhebung" of alienation ceases to be a moral postulate: it is considered as a necessity inherent in the dialectical process as such. (In accordance with this feature of Hegel's philosophy we find that his conception of equality has for its centre of reference the realm of "is", not that of a moral-legal "ought". His "epistemological democratism"– i.e. his assertion according to which all men are actuallycapable of achieving true knowledge, provided that they approach the task in terms of the categories of the Hegelian dialectic, is an essential constituent of his inherently historical conception of philosophy. No wonder, therefore, that later the radically ahistorical Kierkegaard denounces, with aristocratic contempt, this "omnibus" of a philosophical understanding of the historical processes.) However, since the socio-economic contradictions themselves are turned by Hegel into "thought-entities", the necessary "Aufhebung" of the contradictions manifest in the dialectical process is in the last analysis nothing but a merely conceptual ("abstract, logical, speculative") supersession of these contradictions which leaves the actuality of capitalist alienation completely unchallenged. This is why Marx has to speak of Hegel's "uncritical positivism". Hegel's standpoint always remains a bourgeois standpoint. But it is far from being an unproblematical one. On the contrary, the Hegelian philosophy as a whole displays in the most graphic way the gravely problematic character of the world to which the philosopher himself belongs. The contradictions of that world transpire through his categories, despite their "abstract, logical speculative" character, and the message of the necessity of a transcendence counteracts the illusory terms in which such a transcendence is envisaged by Hegel himself. In this sense his philosophy as a whole is a vital step in the direction of a proper understanding of the roots of capitalistic alienation.
In the writings of the Utopian Socialists there is an attempt at changing the social standpoint of criticism. With the working class a new social force appears on the horizon and the Utopian Socialists as critics of capitalistic alienation try to reassess the relation of forces from a viewpoint which allows them to take into account the existence of this new social force. And yet, their approach objectively remains, on the whole, within the limits of the bourgeois horizon, though of course subjectively the representatives of Utopian Socialism negate some essential features of capitalism. They can only project a supersession of the established order of society by a socialist system of relations in the form of a largely imaginary model, or as a moral postulate, rather than an ontological necessity inherent in the contradictions of the existing structure of society. (Characteristically enough: educational utopias, oriented towards the "workman", form an essential part of the conception of Utopian Socialists.) What makes their work of an enormous value is the fact that their criticism is directed towards clearly identifiable material factors of social life. Although they do not have a comprehensiveassessment of the established social structures, their criticism of some vitally important social phenomena – from a critique of the modern State to the analysis of commodity production and of the role of money greatly contributes to a radical reorientation of the critique of alienation. This criticism, however, remains partial. Even when it is oriented towards the "workman", the proletarian social position appears in it only as a directly given sociological immediacy and as a mere negation. Thus the Utopian critique of capitalist alienation remains – however paradoxical this may sound – within the orbit of capitalistic partiality which it negates from a partial standpoint. Because of the inescapable partiality of the critical standpoint the element of "ought", again, assumes the function of constructing "totalities" both negatively – i.e. by producing the overall object of criticism in want of an adequate comprehension of the structures of capitalism – and positively, by providing the utopian counter examples to the negative denunciations.
And this is the point where we come to Marx. For the central feature of Marx's theory of alienation is the assertion of the historically necessary supersession of capitalism by socialism freed from all the abstract moral postulates which we can find in the writings of his immediate predecessors. The ground of his assertion was not simply the recognition of the unbearable dehumanising effects of alienation – though of course subjectively that played a very important part in the formation of Marx's thought – but the profound understanding of the objective ontological foundation of the processes that remained veiled from his predecessors. The "secret" of this elaboration of the Marxian theory of alienation was spelled out by Marx himself when he wrote in his Grundrisse:
"this process of objectification appears in fact as a process of alienation from the standpoint of labour and as appropriation of alien labour from the standpoint of capital."
The fundamental determinants of capitalistic alienation, then, had to remain hidden from all those who associated themselves knowingly or unconsciously, in one form or in another – with "the standpoint of capital".
A radical shift of the standpoint of social criticism was a necessary condition of success in this respect. Such a shift involved the critical adoption of the standpoint of labour from which the capitalistic process of objectification could appear as a process of alienation. (In the writings of thinkers before Marx, by contrast, "objectification" and "alienation" remained hopelessly entangled with one another.)
But it is vitally important to stress that this adoption of labour's standpoint had to be a critical one. For a simple, uncritical identification with the standpoint of labour – one that saw alienation only, ignoring both the objectification involved in it, as well as the fact that this form of alienating-objectification was a necessary phase in the historical development of the objective ontological conditions of labour – would have meant hopelesssubjectivity and partiality.
The universality of Marx's vision became possible because he succeeded in identifying the problematics of alienation, from a critically adopted standpoint of labour, in its complex ontological totality characterised by the terms "objectification", "alienation", and "appropriation". This critical adoption of the standpoint of labour meant a conception of the proletariat not simply as a sociological force diametrically opposed to the standpoint of capital – and thus remaining in the latter's orbit – but as a self-transcending historical force which cannot help superseding alienation (i.e. the historically given form of objectification) in the process of realising its own immediate ends that happen to coincide with the "reappropriation of the human essence".
Thus the historical novelty of Marx's theory of alienation in relation to the conceptions of his predecessors can be summed up in a preliminary way as follows:
1. the terms of reference of his theory are not the categories of "Sollen" (ought), but those of necessity ("is") inherent in the objective ontological foundations of human life;
2. its point of view is not that of some utopian partiality but the universality of the critically adopted standpoint of labour;
3. its framework of criticism is not some abstract (Hegelian) "speculative totality", but the concrete totality of dynamically developing society perceived from the material basis of the proletariat as a necessarily self-transcending ("universal") historical force.
poet816 | August 5, 2014 at 4:56 pm | Tags: Alienation, Critical Theory, Frankfurt School, Philosophy | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p4hBlw-5J
Comment   See all comments   Like
Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from NeoBohemia.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://neobohemia816.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/marxs-theory-of-aienation/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com





From Tikkun: Israel and War Crimes

$
0
0
We decided to reprint this after noting that a Rabbi in Israel suggested Rape was a Religious right in time of war -- just recently v. Gaza.


Editor's Note: Tikkun does not have a legal staff capable of assessing the case presented below by law professor Marjorie Cohn with regard to the evidence for Israeli war crimes. We are aware that when the UN sought to evaluate war crimes in Israel's last major assault on Gaza, the Goldstone Report presented a very convincing case for war crimes, except in regard to its claim that Israel intended to kill Palestinian civilians. But as a South African (and as a member of the board of the Hebrew University), Justice Goldstone argued that it is sufficient to show that a course of action is extremely likely to produce civilian deaths to establish the war crime even if the court cannot establish the intent to kill civilians beyond a reasonable doubt (e.g., systematically bombing housing).
One might ask the following question, in thinking about that issue: If Hamas had said that it had reason to believe that Israeli soldiers were being housed in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Be'er Sheva (which is certainly true, since most Israelis are in the army), many of them with armed weapons, and that its attempts to bomb those cities were aimed at those soldiers and not at civilians (though regrettably the imperfections in their targeting was not their intention), would Israelis agree that their bombings were not acts of terrorism, but merely acceptable behavior under conditions of war?
In any event, the Obama administration dismissed the Goldstone report and it was wildly attacked as anti-Semitic (despite the fact that Goldstone's Jewish credentials are impeccable).  The United States also made it impossible for the UN to act on the report. Given this information, it seems unlikely that if the article below would be given serious consideration even if it is based on accurate information it would be. Nevertheless, the legal arguments are worth considering, and we also invite any serious law professor who wishes to challenge the legal reasoning to send us a rebuttal (to rabbilerner.tikkun@gmail.com).
Meanwhile, we should add the following: Hamas' war crimes and crimes against humanity were also documented by the Goldstone report. Tikkun's critique of Israeli policy may seem more prevalent than our critique of Hamas for the following reasons: 1. The U.S. is funding Israel, but not Hamas, so we have a direct involvement in the policies which our tax dollars fund. 2. Hamas is by far the weaker party, so the damage it inflicts on Israel is far less than the damage Israel inflicts on Gaza, and Israel is in comparison like a giant having a fight with a bee. So we believe Israel has the greater responsibility to take the major steps toward compromise and reconciliation, without denying that the bee stings hurt!  3. We have special attachment to Israel and wish to see it thrive, a feeling we do not have for Hamas, so that makes us all the more concerned about Israel's policies, which we see as self-destructive (and the Israel-cheerleaders are, in our view, Israel's worst enemies, because they are empowering these policies—they remind us of the American communists who cheered on or at least defended every policy of the Stalinist Soviet Union, thereby helping Stalin and his followers implant in the consciousness of most people on the planet the idea that communism and socialist ideas were intrinsically connected to totalitarianism, thereby in the not-too-long-run managing to discredit both communism and socialism for at least sixty years and still continuing). No nation will survive for long if it is seen by the rest of the world as fundamentally evil, and the only way Israel can avoid that fate is to not only end the Occupation, but also to end it in a spirit of repentance, generosity, genuine caring for the Palestinian people, and open-hearted reconciliation with the majority of people in the Arab and Islamic worlds.  Such changes will take a fundamental transformation of consciousness of precisely the sort that Tikkun and our Network of Spiritual Progressives seeks to build in Western countries in the next twenty to thirty years.
–Rabbi Michael Lerner, Editor  


Tallying Israeli War Crimes
August 8, 2014

 By Marjorie Cohn

For decades, Israel has slaughtered Palestinians with impunity, always protected by the U.S. government and its veto at the UN Security Council. But the latest bloody assault on Gaza has prompted more open talk about Israeli war crimes — and U.S. complicity, says Marjorie Cohn.
By sending vast amounts of military aid to Israel, members of the U.S. Congress, President George W. Bush, President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel have aided and abetted the commission of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity by Israeli officials and commanders in Gaza.
An individual can be convicted of a war crime, genocide or a crime against humanity in the ICC if he or she “aids, abets or otherwise assists” in the commission or attempted commission of the crime, “including providing the means for its commission.”
There is growing evidence that Israeli leaders and commanders have committed war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute for the ICC. U.S. military aid has aided, abetted and assisted the commission of these crimes by providing Israel with the military means to commit them.
During Operation Protective Edge, Israeli forces again used the Dahiye Doctrine, which, according to the UN Human Rights Council [Goldstone] Report, involves “the application of disproportionate force and causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations.”
According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2007, the Bush Administration agreed to provide Israel with $30 billion in military assistance from 2009 to 2018, provided in annual increments of $3.1 billion. During his March 2013 visit to Israel, Obama pledged that the U.S. would continue to provide Israel with multi-year commitments of military aid subject to the approval of Congress.
Since 2012, the U.S. has sent $276 million worth of weapons and munitions to Israel, not including exports of military transport equipment and high technologies. From January to May 2014, the U.S. transferred to Israel almost $27 million for rocket launchers, $9.3 million worth of parts of guided missiles and nearly $762,000 for bombs, grenades and munitions of war.
On July 20, 2014, Israel requested additional ammunition, including 140mm tank rounds and 40mm illumination grenades, and the Defense Department approved the sale three days later. It came from a $1 billion stockpile of ammunition the U.S. military stores in Israel for that country’s use; it is called War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel.
In early August 2014, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly passed, and Obama signed, an appropriation of $225 million for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, which has also been used in Gaza. The Senate vote was unanimous. With no debate, the House of Representatives voted 395 to 8 to approve the deal. 
War crimes
Here is a summary of the crimes, as defined in the Rome Statute, that Israeli leaders have committed and U.S. leaders have aided and abetted:
(1) Willful killing: Israeli forces have killed nearly 2,000 Palestinians (more than 400 children and over 80 percent civilians). Israel used 155-millimeter artillery, which, according to Human Rights Watch, is “utterly inappropriate in a densely populated area, because this kind of artillery is considered accurate if it lands anyplace within a 50-meter radius.”
(2) Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health: Nearly10,000 people, 2,500 of them children, have been wounded. Naban Abu Shaar told the Daily Beast that the dead bodies from what appeared to be a “mass execution” in Khuza’a looked like they were “melted” and were piled on top of each other; assault rifle bullet casings found in the house were marked “IMI” (Israel Military Industries).
UNICEF said the Israeli offensive has had a “catastrophic and tragic impact” on children in Gaza; about 373,000 children have had traumatic experiences and need psychological help. The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) said: “There’s a public health catastrophe going on. You know, most of the medical facilities in Gaza are non-operational.”
(3) Unlawful and wanton, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity: Tens of thousands of Palestinians have lost their homes. More than 1,300 buildings were destroyed and 752 were severely damaged. Damage to sewer and water infrastructure has affected two-thirds of Gazans. On July 20, Israeli forces virtually flattened the small town of Khuza’a; one man counted 360 shell attacks in one hour.
Reconstruction of Gaza is estimated to cost $6 billion. Israel shrunk Gaza’s habitable land mass by 44 percent, establishing a 3 km “no-go” zone for Palestinians; 147 square miles of land will be compressed into 82 square miles. Oxfam described the level of destruction as “outrageous … much worse than anything we have seen in previous [Israeli] military operations.”
(4) Willfully depriving a prisoner of war or a civilian the rights of fair and regular trial: Nearly 2,000 Palestinians were arrested by Israeli forces during July 2014, according to the Palestinian Prisoners Center for Studies. Prisoners include 15 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, about 240 children, dozens of women, journalists, activists, academics and 62 former prisoners previously released in a prisoner exchange.
Israeli forces executed many prisoners after arrest, either by directly firing on them, refusing to allow treatment or allowing them to bleed to death. More than 445 prisoners are being held without charge or trial under administrative detention.
(5) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population, civilian objects, or humanitarian vehicles, installations and personnel: “The civilian population in the Gaza Strip is under direct attack,” reads a joint declaration of over 150 international law experts. Israeli forces violated the principle of “distinction,” which forbids deliberate attacks on civilians or civilian objects.
Israeli forces bombed 142 schools (89 run by the UN), including six UN schools in which civilians were taking refuge. Israeli forces shot and killed fleeing civilians (warnings, which must effectively give civilians time to flee before bombing, do not relieve Israel from its legal obligations not to target civilians). Israeli forces repeatedly bombed Gaza’s only power plant and other infrastructure, which are “beyond repair.” Israeli forces bombed one-third of Gaza’s hospitals, 14 primary healthcare clinics and 29 ambulances. At least five medical staff were killed and tens of others were injured.
(6) Intentionally launching attacks with knowledge they will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or long-term severe damage to the natural environment, if they are clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage: The principle of “proportionality” forbids disproportionate and excessive civilian casualties compared to the claimed military advantage gained in the attack.
The Dahiye Doctrine directly violates this principle. Responding to Hamas’ rockets with 155-millimeter artillery is disproportionate. Although nearly 2,000 Palestinians (over 80 percent civilians) have been killed, 67 Israelis (all but three of them soldiers) have been killed. The coordinates of all UN facilities were repeatedly communicated to the Israeli forces; they nevertheless bombed them multiple times. Civilians were attacked in Shuja’iyyah market.
(7) Attacking or bombarding undefended towns, villages, dwellings or buildings, or intentionally attacking religious, educational and medical buildings, which are not military objectives: On July 20, Israeli forces virtually flattened the small town of Khuza’a; one man counted 360 shell attacks in one hour. Israeli forces bombed 142 schools (89 run by the UN), one-third of Gaza’s hospitals, 14 primary healthcare clinics, and 29 ambulances. Israeli shelling completely destroyed 41 mosques and partially destroyed 120 mosques. 

Genocide
(a) With the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group: Palestinians, including primarily civilians, and Palestinian infrastructure necessary to sustain life were deliberately targeted by Israeli forces. 

(b) The commission of any of the following acts:
(i) killing members of the group: Israeli forces killed nearly 2,000 Palestinians.
(ii) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: Israeli forces 
wounded
 10,000 Palestinians.
(iii) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part: Israeli forces devastated Gaza’s infrastructure, knocking out Gaza’s only power plant, and destroying homes, schools, buildings, mosques and hospitals.



Crimes against humanity
(A) The commission of murder as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population: Israeli forces relentlessly bombed Gaza for one month, killing nearly 2,000 Palestinians, more than 80 percent of whom were civilians. Israeli forces intentionally destroyed Gaza’s infrastructure, knocking out Gaza’s only power plant, and destroying homes, schools, buildings, mosques and hospitals.
(B) Persecution against a group or collectivity based on its political, racial, national, ethnic or religious character, as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population: Israeli forces killed, wounded, summarily executed, and administratively detained Palestinians, Hamas forces and civilians alike. Israel forces intentionally destroyed the infrastructure of Gaza, populated by Palestinians.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said: “the massive death and destruction in Gaza have shocked and shamed the world.” He added the repeated bombing of UN shelters facilities in Gaza was “outrageous, unacceptable and unjustifiable.”
(C) The crime of apartheid (inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutional regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another racial group, with the intent to maintain that regime): Ali Hayek, head of Gaza’s federation of industries representing 3,900 businesses that employ 35,000 people, said: “After 30 days of war, the economic situation has become, like, dead. It seems the occupation intentionally destroyed these vital factories that constitute the backbone of the society.”
Israel maintains an illegal barrier wall that encroaches on Palestinian territory and builds illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands. Israel keeps Gazans caged in what many call “the world’s largest open air prison.” Israel controls all ingress and egress to Gaza, limits Gazans’ access to medicine, subjects Palestinians to arbitrary arrest, expropriates their property, maintains separate areas and roads, segregated housing, different legal and educational systems for Palestinians and Jews and prevents mixed marriages. Only Jews, not Palestinians, have the right to return to Israel-Palestine.


Collective Punishment
Although the Rome Statute does not include the crime of collective punishment, it is considered a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which constitutes a war crime. Collective punishment means punishing a civilian for an offense he or she has not personally committed; it forbids reprisals against civilians and their property (civilian objects).
Ostensibly to root out Hamas fighters, Israel has wreaked unprecedented devastation on the people of Gaza, killing nearly 2,000 people (more than 80 percent of them civilians) and destroying much of the infrastructure of Gaza. This constitutes collective punishment.
On Aug. 5, 2014, veteran Israeli military advisor Giora Eiland advocated collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population, saying: “In order to guarantee our interests versus the other side’s demands, we must avoid the artificial, wrong and dangerous distinction between the Hamas people, who are ‘the bad guys,’ and Gaza’s residents, which are allegedly ‘the good guys.’” That is precisely the strategy Israel has employed during Operation Protective Edge.
Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands also constitutes collective punishment. Israel maintains effective control over Gaza’s land, airspace, seaport, electricity, water, telecommunications and population registry. Israel deprives Gazans of food, medicine, fuel and basic services.


Prospects for Accountability
Both Israel and the U.S. have refused to ratify the Rome Statute. But if Palestine were a party to the statute, the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by Israelis and Americans in Palestinian territory. The ICC could also take jurisdiction if the UN Security Council refers the matter to the ICC, or if the ICC prosecutor initiates an investigation of the crime.
The U.S. would veto any Security Council referral to the ICC. And the ICC prosecutor has not initiated an investigation. So the question is whether Palestine can ratify the statute, thereby becoming a party to the ICC.
In 2009, the Palestinian National Authority filed a declaration with the ICC accepting the court’s jurisdiction. In 2012, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state. During the present war, the Palestinian minister of justice and the deputy minister of justice both submitted documents to the ICC indicating that the 2009 declaration is still valid. On Aug. 5, 2014, the Palestinian minister of foreign affairs met with officials from the ICC and inquired about the procedures for Palestine to become a party to the statute.
On July 25, 2014, a French lawyer filed a complaint with the ICC on behalf of the Palestinian justice minister. Citing Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territories, Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip and the ongoing military operations there, the complaint alleges that Israel committed war crimes and other crimes. The Palestinian government has not formally commented on this complaint.
On July 23, 2014, the UN Human Rights Council established a commission of inquiry into Israeli violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law. The resolution also called on parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to convene and respond to the alleged violations. That convention requires parties to prosecute violators.
Countries can bring foreign nationals to justice for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity under the well-established doctrine of universal jurisdiction. Genocide charges could also be brought under the Genocide Convention, to which both Israel and the United States are parties. That convention also punishes complicity in genocide; U.S. leaders’ provision of military aid would constitute complicity.
Although the Israeli and U.S. governments continue to maintain that Israel has only acted in self-defense against Hamas’ terrorism, the weight of world opinion points in the opposite direction. There is overwhelming opposition to Israeli aggression in Gaza and calls for justice and accountability.
Both Israeli and U.S. leaders must be criminally prosecuted for committing and aiding and abetting these crimes.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, and a former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her next book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, will be published in September. [See Cohn’s “US Leaders Aid and Abet Israeli War Crimes, Genocide & Crimes against Humanity,” JURIST – Forum , Aug. 8, 2014.]

MISSOURI RIOTS, BY DIZZY GASHOUSE

$
0
0

DATELINE MISSOURI, BY DIZZY GASHOUSE





 

Illustration: The Best Missouri Has to Offer (Besides Me)



            Our Missouri correspondent filed this breaking report:



            Ferguson, MO.  There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that ISIS is involved in the recent troubles in St. Louis County, MO.  Al-Maliki has resigned as head of Iraq and therefore can not be blamed for the Caliphate activities, if any, and we stress IF.



            Governor Jay Nixon snapped into action today by giving a press conference in St. Louis City with all sorts of black people behind him.  The Missouri Guard is taking over the investigation.  The death of a "black African-American male," as described in all the major networks to distinguish him from a white African American male was clearly an outrage as were the tactics used by the Ferguson Police dressed in full camoplage gear with military style rifles.



            Nixon managed to restore calm by speaking long and slowly, with frequent utterances of "uh" on all local St. Louis Stations and the three major cable networks to the point that most fell asleep or were lulled.  Only reporters seemed to maintain an interest and he answered every question at great length with the proper amount of vagueness.



            Last night, two reporters were arrested and thrown in jail, one from the Huffington Post and another from the Washington something or another, for being in a McDonalds.  One was thrown against a coke machine, injuring the machine, and may well be facing charges from the Coca Cola Company, as any of you who have seen Dr. Strangelove knows.



            New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, Baptists, and other political figures had marched earlier in the day demanding action.  After Nixon's response, many are still asleep and calm has been restored.   










-->

An International View, IS, Gaza, MO

$
0
0

THE ABSURD TIMES

    We will soon do another edition, but there is so much to catch up on here, we might as well stop at this.

    In order to better understand what happened in Ferguson, MO, it might be worthwhile to see how it looks to the rest of the world through their eyes.  People had visions early on that the local police were lining up people and regularly shooting them  They imagined it looked something like this:


 

Of course, police and authorities here would say things were nothing like this.  Nevertheless, the reaction was that some sort of resistance organization was needed, a peaceful way of demonstrating that the victim, Brown, was holding his hand up and we are in solidarity with him:



Well, the peaceful approach didn't seem to work, so, again from overseas, perhaps a more militant response was needed:


Of course, reality never comes off in the media the way it really was, does it?  I mean, this never happened in Iraq, did it?





So, really everything is nice and cool in Missouri and Iraq, and in Gaza all humanitarian measures are being taken.  Well, here are a couple interviews and coverage of Ferguson and Gaza, and you can decide for yourself.  both seem pretty accurate.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2014

"Negro Spring": Ferguson Residents, Friends of Michael Brown Speak Out for Human Rights

As peaceful protests continued Wednesday in Ferguson, Missouri, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder arrived in the city to meet with residents and FBI agents investigating the police shooting of Michael Brown. Democracy Now! traveled to Ferguson this week and visited the site where the 18-year-old Brown was killed. We spoke to young people who live nearby, including some who knew him personally. "He fell on his knees. Like, ’Don’t shoot.’ [The police officer] shot him anyway in the eye, the head, and four times down here," said one local resident Rico Like. "Hands up, don’t shoot is all I got to say. RIP Mike Brown."

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2014

A War on Gaza’s Future? Israeli Assault Leaves 500 Kids Dead, 3,000 Injured, 373,000 Traumatized

As the Israeli offensive in Gaza resumes, we look at the impact the military campaign has had on the children of Gaza. More than 467 Palestinian children have died since July. That is more than the combined number of child fatalities in the two previous conflicts in Gaza. According to the World Health Organization, more than 3,000 children have been injured, of which an estimated 1,000 will suffer from a lifelong disability. The United Nations estimates at least 373,000 children require direct and specialized psychosocial support. And, based on the total number of adults killed, there may be up to 1,500 children orphaned. Gazan children’s right to an education has also been severely compromised with at least 25 schools reportedly damaged so severely that they can no longer be used. We speak to Pernille Ironside, chief of UNICEF’s Gaza field office.
"There isn’t a single family in Gaza who hasn’t experienced personally death, injury, the loss of their home, extensive damage, displacement," Ironside says. "The psychological toll that has on a people, it just cannot be overestimated, and especially on children."
Image Credit: UNICEF

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


-->

ISIS, FERGUSON, GAZA, RUSSIA

$
0
0

THE ABSURD TIMES



Just keeping up to date:



IRAQ AND THE SUCCESS OF ISIS:



There are wondering whether to bomb the Caliphate, once the Islamic State, before that IS, ISIL, ISIS, in Syria.  We have been pointing out for some time that what our corporate media like to call "Rebels" are really "Terrorists."  They still don't get it.  In Iraq they are bad guys, we are not sure in Syria.  Assad allowed all religions, tried to feed all his people, and was a Ba'athist or Socialist.  The crowd against him is nuts.



Moral: The best was to defeat terrorism is to Support Assad.



CENTRAL U.S. AND A PERSONAL SAVIOR:



Below is an attempt at a transcript of once exchange in Ferguson, MO.



Q. Q sounds very much like a media reporter, either radio or TV.



A.: A is a policeman during one of the demonstrations.



A: Get the fuck back or I'm gonna fucking shoot you!  (Aiming a rifle, slightly stage right.)  



Q:  Are you threatening to shoot him for standing there?



A:  Shut the fuck up of I'll kill ya.



Q:. What is your name, Officer?



A.: Go fuck yerself!



Q.: Ok, Officer go fuck yourself, could you tell us why you want to kill him?



At this point, another policeman, from a different division, moves officer go fuck yerself off and away, fade out.



It turns out that Officer God Fuck Yerself was of the St. Ann's force, not Ferguson.



Some days later, a video on another officer appears where he says Jesus is his personal savior and that black husbands and wives should just shoot one another.  He said a lot of other things, too.



MORAL: A shut mouth gathers no foot.





GAZA AND ISRAEL, HAMAS AND ZIONISM



The last cease-fire did nothing buy give Israel time to gather more information and decided on further attacks.  The only way for the problem to be solved would be for the U.S. to stop endorsing everything Israel did.  It will not happen.



All that can be done is on the individual level: watch carefully when you purchase anything to see if you can determine if Israel can profit by it.  It so, don't buy it.



MORAL: Are you kidding, where Israel is concerned? Moral?  Sheesh.





RUSSIA AND UKRAINE



Russia sent in its supply trucks to feed those in need, and of course it is being called an attack.  Obama led sanctions against Russia, so Putin banned many imports.  Farmers in Greece were so angry because they had no market for their produce that they are dumping it on NATO headquarters and burning it.  To show he really meant business, Putin shut down four McDonald's restaurants for sanitary violations.  Considering how reporters in Ferguson were attacked for even being in a McDonald's, you get an idea of how bold a move this is.



MORAL: Mind your own business.





 



-->

[New post] Genesis of Marx’s Theory of Alienation

$
0
0


poet816 posted: "A FEW WORD OF MY OWN   I do not publish anything here unless I have read and understood it, and this explains the long delay in posting this. It is not all that difficult to follow, but it is indeed tedious, at least I found it so. Many would s"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on NeoBohemia

Genesis of Marx's Theory of Alienation

by poet816
A FEW WORD OF MY OWN

I do not publish anything here unless I have read and understood it, and this explains the long delay in posting this. It is not all that difficult to follow, but it is indeed tedious, at least I found it so. Many would say this lacks a certain lack of intellectual curiosity and interest and relegate me to the moronic masses, but you do have to remember that I find things such as Kant's Critique of Pure Reason exciting and his "Practical Reason" understandable as well as somewhat lamentable. Now this is Part 2 of three that follows and, unless there is some demand or interest for book 3, the last that I will publish.   If you are interested in Book 3, let me know and I will post it quickly, as it is.
The subject of alienation is an important one and we do learn a few things from this contribution. It makes an excellent case for the importance of Engels to the work of Marx. It also talks about the "Jewish Question" in a way that is not offensive.   It is simply a part of the need to have the view of detachment or to see things as an outsider. Fortunately, there is none of the Zionist cant that has become so offensive.
Now, for a few things that have been irritating me: I do wish that the media and people in general would stop mis--using the word "Calculus," whatever they mean by it, whether approach, way of figuring, whatever.   Calculus in a mathematical discipline invented by Leibnitz and Newton back in the eighteenth century an
​d​
has remained pretty much constant, with some improvements, mainly in proofs of the General Theory. So, unless you have done at least double integrals or taken a few derivatives, or at least know what the hell they are, STOP USING THE WORD! Learn some other word.
Actually, that is the thing that I most wanted to get off my chest.   From now on, I'll try to post more exciting or interesting things and perhaps make a few comments on things as they are today. For now, take care!


István Mészáros, 1970
Marx's Theory of Aienation

2. Genesis of Marx's Theory of Alienation


1. Marx's Doctoral Thesis and His Critique of the Modern State

ALREADY in his Doctoral Thesis Marx tackled some of the problems of alienation, though in a quite peculiar form, analysing the Epicurean philosophy as an expression of a historical stage dominated by the "privatisation of life". The "isolated individuality" is representative of such a historical stage, and philosophy is characterised by the simile of the "moth" that seeks "the lamplight of the private realm" after the universal sunset. These times which are also characterised by a particular intensity of a "hostile schism of philosophy from the world" are, however "Titanic" because the cleavage within the structure of the given historical stage is tremendous. From this viewpoint Lucretius – the Epicurean poet – must be considered, according to Marx, the true heroic poet of Rome. A poet who "celebrates in song the substance of the Roman Spirit; in place of Homer's joyful, robust, total characters here we have hard, impenetrably armoured heroes lacking in all other qualities; the war of all against all(bellum omnium contra omnes), the rigid form of being-for-itself, nature that lost its god and god who lost its world".
As we can see, Marx's analysis serves to throw into relief a principle – bellum omnium contra omnes– which has a fundamental bearing on alienation. Later on, in connection with the Hobbesian philosophy, he refers to the same principle, in opposition to the romantic and mystifying approach of his contemporaries, the "true socialists":
"The true socialist proceeds from the thought that the dichotomy of life and happiness (der Zwiespalt von Leben und Glück) must cease. To prove this thesis, he summons the aid of nature and assumes that in it this dichotomy does not exist; from this he deduces that since man. too, is a natural body and possesses all the general properties of such a body, no dichotomy should exist for him either. Hobbes had much better reasons for invoking nature as a proof of his bellum omnium contra omnes. Hegel, on whose construction our true socialist depends, actually perceives in nature the cleavage, the dissolute period of the absolute idea and even calls the animal the concrete anguish of God." [German Ideology]
The contradictory character of the world is already in the centre of Marx's attention when he analyses the Epicurean philosophy. He emphasises that Epicurus is principally interested in contradiction, that he determines the nature of the atom as inherently contradictory. And this is how the concept of alienation appears in Marx's philosophy stressing the contradiction between "existence alienated from its essence": "Durch die Qualitäten erhült das Atom eine Existenz, die seinem Begriff widerspricht, wird es als enttiussertes, von seinem Wesen unterschiedenes Dasein gesetzt." And again: "Erstens macht Epikur den Widerspruch zwischen Materie und Form zum Charakter der erscheinenden Natur, die so das Gegenbild der wesentlichen, des Atoms, wird. Dies geschieht, indem dem Raum die Zeit, der passiven Form der Erscheinung die aktive entgegengesetzt wird. Zweitens wird erst bei Epikur die Erscheinung als Erscheinung aufgefasst, d. h. als eine Entfremdung des Wesens, die sich selbst in ihrer Wirklichkeit als solche Entfremdung betätigt." Marx also emphasises that this "externalisation", and "alienation" is a "Verselbstständigung", i.e. an independent, autonomous mode of existence, and that the "absolute principle" of Epicurus' atomism – this "natural science of self-consciousness"– is abstract individuality.
Marx's next step towards a more concrete formulation of the problematics of alienation was closely connected with his enquiries into the nature of the modern state. The historical tendency described earlier by Marx in its generic form with the terms "isolated individuality" and "abstract individuality" appeared now not in its negativity but as a positive force (positive as synonymous with "real" and "necessary", and not as predicative of moral approval). This historical tendency is said to give rise to the "self-centred" modern state, in contradistinction to the polis-state in which the "isolated individuality" is an unknown phenomenon. Such a modern state, whose "centre of gravity" was discovered by modern philosophers "within the state itself", is thus the natural condition of this "isolated individuality".
Viewed from the standpoint of this "self-centred" modern state the principle of bellum omnium contra omnes can be formulated as if it possessed the elemental force, eternal validity, and universality of the laws of nature. It is significant that in Marx's discussion of the "Copernican law" of the modern state the name of Hobbes appears again in company of those philosophers who greatly contributed to the elaboration of the problematics of alienation. "Immediately before and after the time of Copernicus's great discoveries on the true solar system the law of gravitation of the state was discovered: the centre of gravity of the state was found within the state itself. As various European governments tried to apply this result with the initial superficiality of practice to the system of equilibrium of states, similarly Macchiavelli and Campanella began before them and Hobbes, Spinoza, and Hugo Grotius afterwards down to Rousseau, Fichte and Hegel, to consider the state with the eye of man and to develop its natural laws from reason and experience, not from theology, any more than Copernicus let himself be influenced by Joshua's supposed command to the sun to stand still over Gideon and the moon over the vale of Ajalon.
In this period of his development Marx's attention is focused primarily on the problems of the state. His early evaluation of the nature and function of religion appears in this connection. Criticising those who held the view according to which the downfall of the old religions brought with it the decadence of the States of Greece and Rome, Marx emphasises that on the contrary it was the downfall of these states that caused the dissolution of their respective religions. This kind of assessment of religion has, of course, its predecessors, but it reaches its climax in Marx's theory of alienation. At the time of writing the article just referred to, Marx's sphere of reference is still confined to politics. Nevertheless his radical reversal of his opponents' approach - which he calls "history upside down"– is a major step in the direction of a comprehensive materialist conception of the complex totality of capitalist alienation.
The most important work for the understanding of the development of Marx's theory of alienation up to the Autumn of 1843 is hisCritique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right. We shall discuss later in a more detailed form Marx's criticism of the Hegelian view of alienation. At this point, however, it is necessary to quote a very important passage from this work, in order to show some characteristic features of this phase of Marx's intellectual development. It reads as follows:
"The present condition of society displays its difference from the earlier state of civil society in that – in contrast to the past – it does not integrate the individual within its community. It depends partly on chance, partly on the individual's effort etc. whether or not he holds on to his estate; to an estate which, again, determines the individual merely externally. For his station is not inherent in the individual's labour, nor does it relate itself to him as an objective community, organised in accordance with constant laws and maintaining a permanent relationship to him.... The principle of the bourgeois estate – or of bourgeois society – is enjoyment and the ability to enjoy. In a political sense the member of bourgeois society detaches himself from his estate, his real private position; it is only here that his characteristic of being human assumes its significance, or that his determination as a member of an estate, as a communal being, appears as his human determination. For all his other determinations appear in bourgeois society as inessential for man, for the individual, as merely external determinations which may be necessary for his existence in the whole – i.e. as a tie with the whole – but they constitute a tie which he can just as well cast away. (The present bourgeois society is the consistent realisation of the principle of individualism; individual existence is the ultimate end; activity, labour, content etc. are only means.) The real man is the private individual of present-day political constitution. . . . Not only is the estate founded on the division of society as its ruling law, it also divorces man from his universal being; it turns him into an animal that directly coincides with his determination. The Middle Ages constitute the animal history of mankind, its Zoology. The modern age, our civilisation commits the opposite error. It divorces from man his objective being as something merely external and material. [Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right]
As we can see, many elements of Marx's theory of alienation, developed in a systematic form in the Manuscripts of 1844, are already present in this Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right. Even if Marx does not use in this passage the terms "Entfremdung", "Entäusserung", and "Veräusserung", his insistence on the "division of society" ("Trennung der Sozietät") and on the merely "external determination of the individual" ("äusserliche Bestimmung des Individuums"), with their direct reference to the "divorce of man from his objective being" ("Sie trennt das gegenständliche Wesen des Menschen von ihm") in the age of "civilisation"– i.e. in modern capitalistic society – take him near to the basic concept of his later analysis.
Moreover, we can note in our quotation a reference to the mere "externality of labour" as regards the individual ("Tätigkeit, Arbeit, Inhalt etc. sind nur Mittel" etc.): an idea that some ten months later is going to occupy a central place in Marx's theory of alienation. Here, however, this phenomenon is considered basically from a legal-institutional standpoint. Accordingly, capitalism is characterised as "the consistent realisation of the principle of individualism" ("das durchgeführte Prinzip des Individualismus"), whereas in Marx's later conception this "principle of individualism" is put in its proper perspective: it is analysed as a manifestation determined by the alienation of labour, as one of the principal aspects of labour's self-alienation.

2. The Jewish Question and the Problem of German Emancipation

The Autumn of 1843 brought certain changes in Marx's orientation. By that time he was already residing in Paris, surrounded by a more stimulating intellectual environment which helped him to draw the most radical conclusions from his analysis of contemporary society. He was able to assess the social and political anachronism of Germany from a real basis of criticism (i.e. he could perceive the contradictions of his own country from the perspective of the actual situation of a historically more advanced European state) and not merely from the standpoint of a rather abstract ideality that characterised German philosophical criticism, including, up to a point, the earlier Marx himself.
Philosophical generalisations always require some sort of distance (or "outsider-position") of the philosopher from the concrete situation upon which he bases his generalisations. This was evidently the case in the history of philosophy from Socrates to Giordano Bruno, who had to die for being radical outsiders. But even later, "outsiders" played an extraordinary part in the development of philosophy: the Scots with respect to the economically much more advanced England; the philosophers of the backward Naples (from Vico to Benedetto Croce) in relation to the capitalistically more developed Northern Italy; and similar examples can be found in other countries as well. A great number of philosophers belong to this category of outsiders, from Rousseau and Kierkegaard down to Wittgenstein and Lukács in our century.
To Jewish philosophers a particular place is to be assigned in this context. Owing to the position forced upon them by virtue of being social outcasts, they could assume an intellectual standpoint par excellence which enabled them, from Spinoza to Marx, to accomplish some of the most fundamental philosophical syntheses in history. (This characteristic becomes even more striking if one compares the significance of these theoretical achievements with the artistic products of Jewish painters and musicians, sculptors and writers. The outsider's viewpoint that was an advantage in theoretical efforts became a drawback in the. arts, because of the inherently national character of the latter. A drawback resulting – apart from a very few exceptions, such as the quite peculiar, intellectualistic-ironical, poems of Heine – in somewhat rootless works, lacking in the suggestiveness of representational qualities and therefore generally confined to the secondary range of artistic achievements. In the twentieth century, of course, the situation greatly changes. Partly because of a much greater – though never complete – national integration of the particular Jewish communities accomplished by this time thanks to the general realisation of the social trend described by Marx as the "reabsorption of Christianity into Judaism".[On the Jewish Question] More important is, however, the fact that parallel to the advance of this process of "reabsorption"– i.e. parallel to the triumph of capitalistic alienation in all spheres of life – art assumes a more abstract and "cosmopolitan" character than ever before and the experience of rootlessness becomes an all-pervasive theme of modern art. Thus, paradoxically, the earlier drawback turns into an advantage and we witness the appearance of some great Jewish writers – from Proust to Kafka – in the forefront of world literature.)
The outsider position of the great Jewish philosophers was doubly accentuated. In the first place, they were standing in a necessary opposition to their discriminatory and particularistic national communities which rejected the idea of Jewish emancipation. (e.g. "The German Jew, in particular, suffers from the general lack of political freedom and the pronounced Christianity of the state.") But, in the second place, they had to emancipate themselves also from Judaism in order not to paralyse themselves by getting involved in the same contradictions at a different level, i.e. in order to escape from the particularistic and parochial positions of Jewry differing only in some respects but not in substance from the object of their first opposition. Only those Jewish philosophers could achieve the comprehensiveness and degree of universality that characterise the systems of both Spinoza and Marx who were able to grasp the issue of Jewish emancipation in its paradoxical duality as inextricably intertwined with the historical development of mankind. Many others, from Moses Hess to Martin Buber, because of the particularistic character of their perspectives or, in other words, because of their inability to emancipate themselves from "Jewish narrowness"– formulated their views in terms of second rate, provincialistic Utopias.
It is highly significant that in Marx's intellectual development a most important turning point, in the Autumn of 1843, coincided with a philosophical prise de conscience with regard to Judaism. His articles On the Jewish Question written during the last months of 1843 and in January 1844, sharply criticised not only German backwardness and political anachronism that rejected Jewish emancipation, but at the same time also the structure of capitalistic society in general as well as the r6le of Judaism in the development of capitalism.
The structure of modern bourgeois society in relation to Judaism was analysed by Marx on both the social and political plane in such terms which would have been unthinkable on the basis of acquaintance with the Gennan – by no means typical – situation alone. During the last months of 1842 Marx had already studied the writings of French Utopian Socialists, e.g. Fourier, Étienne Cabet, Pierre Leroux and Pierre Considérant. In Paris, however, he had the opportunity of closely observing the social and political situation of France and to some extent even getting personally involved in it. He was introduced to the leaders of the democratic and socialist opposition and often frequented the meetings of the secret societies of workers. Moreover, he intensively studied the history of the French Revolution of 1789 because he wanted to write a history of the Convention. All this helped him to become extremely well acquainted with the most important aspects of the French situation which he was trying to integrate, together with his knowledge and experience of Germany, into a general historical conception. The contrast he drew, from the "outsider's" viewpoint, between the German situation and French society – against the background of modern historical development as a whole – proved fruitful not only for realistically tackling the Jewish question but in general for the elaboration of his well-known historical method.
Only in this framework could the concept of alienation– an eminently historical concept, as we have seen – assume a central place in Marx's thought, as the converging point of manifold socio-economic as well as political problems, and only the notion of alienation could assume such a role within his conceptual framework. (We shall return to a more detailed analysis of the conceptual structure of Marx's theory of alienation in the next chapter.)
In his articles On the Jewish Question Marx's starting point is, again the principle of bellum omnium contra omnes as realised in bourgeois society ("bürgerliche Gesellschaft") that splits man into a public citizen and a private individual, and separates man from his "communal being" (Gemeinwesen), from himself, and from other men. But then Marx goes on to extend these considerations to virtually every aspect of this extremely complex "bürgerliche Gesellschaft"; from the interconnections between religion and the state – finding a common denominator precisely in a mutual reference to alienation – to the economic, political and family relations which manifest themselves, without exception, in some form of alienation.
He uses a great variety of terms to designate the various aspects of alienated bourgeois society, such as "Trennung" (divorce or separation), "Spaltung" (division or cleavage', "Absonderung" (separation or withdrawal), "verderben" (spoil, corrupt), "sich selbst verlieren, verdussern" (lose and alienate oneself), "sich isolieren und auf sich zurilckziehen" (isolate and withdraw oneself into oneself), "dusserlich machen" (externalise, alienate), "alle Gattungstände des Menschen zerreissen" (destroy or disintegrate all the ties of man with his species), "die Menschenwelt in eine Welt atomistischer Individuen auflösen" (dissolve the world of man into a world of atomistic individuals), and so on. And all these terms are discussed in specific contexts which establish their close interconnections with "Entäusserung", "Entfremdung", and "Veräusserung"
Another important study from this period of Marx's intellectual development, written simultaneously with the articles On the Jewish Question, is entitled: Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right, Introduction." In this work the primary task of philosophy is defined as a radical criticism of the "non-sacred" forms and manifestations of self-alienation, in contrast to the views of Marx's contemporaries – including Feuerbach – who confined their attention to the critique of religious alienation. Marx insists, with great passion, that philosophy should transform itself in this spirit. "It is the task of history, therefore once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world.
The immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, is to unmask human self-alienation in its secular form now that it has been unmasked in its sacred form. Thus the criticism of heaven is transformed into the criticism of earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
In this study one cannot fail to perceive the "outsider's" standpoint in relation to the German situation. Marx points out that merely opposing and negating German political circumstances would amount to nothing more than an anachronism, because of the enormous gap that separates Germany from the up-to-date nations of Europe. "If one were to begin with the status quo itself in Germany, even in the most appropriate way, i.e. negatively, the result would still be an anachronism. Even the negation of our political present is already a dusty fact in the historical lumber room of modern nations. I may negate powdered wigs, but I am still left with unpowdered wigs. If I negate the German situation of 1843 I have, according to French chronology, hardly reached the year 1789, and still less the vital centre of the present day." The contrast between German anachronism and the historically "up-to-date nations" of Europe points, in Marx's view, towards a solution that with respect to Germany is rather more of a "categorical imperative" than an actuality: the proletariat that has yet to develop itself beyond the Rhine.
In complete agreement with the line of thought characteristic of the articles On the Jewish Question– in which Marx emphasised, as we have seen, that the complete emancipation of Judaism is inconceivable without the universal emancipation of mankind from the circumstances of self-alienation – he repeatedly stresses the point that "The emancipation of the German coincides with the emancipation of man". Moreover, he emphasises that "It is not radical revolution, universal human emancipation which is a Utopian dream for Germany, but rather a partial, merely political revolution which leaves the pillars of the building standing" and that "In Germany complete [universal] emancipation is a conditio sine qua non for any partial emancipation". The same applies to the Jewish Question; for no degree of political emancipation can be considered an answer when "the Jewish narrowness of society" is at stake.
The importance of these insights is enormous, not only methodologically – insofar as they offer a key to understanding the nature of Utopianism as the inflation of partiality into pseudo-universality– but also practically. For Marx clearly realises that the practical supersession of alienation is inconceivable in terms of politics alone, in view of the fact that politics is only a partial aspect of the totality of social processes, no matter how centrally important it may be in specific historical situations (e.g. late eighteenth century France).
But the limits are also in evidence in these articles. The opposition between "partiality" and "universality" is grasped in its rather abstract generality and only one of its aspects is concretised, negatively, in Marx's rejection of "political partiality" as a possible candidate for bringing about the supersession of alienation. Its positive counterpart remains unspecified as a general postulate of"universality" and thus assumes the character of a "Sollen" (ought). The identification of "universality" with the ontologically fundamental sphere of economics is a later achievement in Marx's thought. At this stage his references to political economy are still rather vague and generic. Although he sees intuitively that "the relation of industry, of the world of wealth in general, to the political world is a major problem of modern times," his assessment of the specific contradictions of capitalism is still rather unrealistic: "While in France and England," he writes, "the problem is put in the form: political economy or the rule of society over wealth; in Germany it is put in the form: national economy or the rule of private property over nationality. Thus, in England and France it is a question of abolishing monopoly, which has developed to its final consequences; while in Germany it is a question of proceeding to the final consequences of monopoly). It is, therefore, not surprising that the element of "ought"– in want of a concrete demonstration of the fundamental economic trends and contradictions which objectively point to the necessary supersession of alienation – plays such an important part in Marx's thought at this stage of his development. In 1843 Marx is still forced to conclude that the critique of religion ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all those conditions in which man is an abased, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being and his first assessment of the role of the proletariat is in full agreement with this vision. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, however, Marx makes a crucial step forward, radically superseding the "political partiality" of his own orientation and the limitations of a conceptual frame-work that characterised his development in its phase of "revolutionary democratism".

3. Marx's Encounter with Political Economy

The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 are evidently the work of a genius; considering the monumentality of this synthesis and the depth of its insights it is almost unbelievable that they were written by a young man of 25. There may appear to be a contradiction here, between acknowledging the "work of a genius" and the Marxist principle according to which great men, just as much as great ideas, arise in history "when the time is ripe for them". In fact "Dr. Marx's genius" was noticed by Moses Hess and others well before the publication of any of his great works.
And yet, we are not involved in any contradiction whatsoever. On the contrary, Marx's own development confirms the general principle of Marxism. For "genius" is but an abstract potentiality before it is articulated in relation to some specific content in response to the objective requirements of a historically given situation. In the abstract sense – as "phenomenal brainpower" etc. – "genius" is always "around", but it is wasted, unrealised, or whittled away in activities and products which leave no mark behind them. The unrealised "genius" of Dr. Marx that mesmerised Moses Hess is a mere historical curiosity as compared with its full realisation in Marx's immense works which not only did not in the least impress the same Moses Hess but succeeded only in arousing his narrow-minded hostility.
In the concrete realisation of the potentiality of Marx's genius his grasp of the concept of "labour's self-alienation" represented the crucial element: the "Archimedean point" of his great synthesis. The elaboration of this concept in its complex, Marxian comprehensiveness – as the philosophical synthesising point of the dynamism of human development – was simply inconceivable prior to a certain time, i.e. prior to the relative maturation of the social contradictions reflected in it. Its conception also required the perfection of the intellectual tools and instruments – primarily through the elaboration of the categories of dialectics – which were necessary for an adequate philosophical grasp of the mystifying phenomena of alienation, as well as, of course, the intellectual power of an individual who could turn to a proper use these instruments. And last, but not least, the appearance of this "Archimedean concept" also presupposed the intense moral passion and unshakeable character of someone who was prepared to announce a "war by all means" on the "conditions in which man is an abased, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being"; someone who could envisage his personal fulfilment, the realisation of his intellectual aims, in the "realisation through abolition" of philosophy in the course of fighting that war. The simultaneous fulfilment of all these conditions and prerequisites was necessary indeed for the Marxian elaboration of the concept of "labour's self-alienation" at a time when the conditions were "ripe for it".
It is well known that Marx started to study the classics of political economy at the end of 1843, but they only served to give, in both On the Jewish Question and his Introduction to a Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right, a background lacking in definition to a primarily political exposition, in the spirit of his programmatic utterance according to which the criticism of religion and theology must be turned into the criticism of law and politics.
In accomplishing the transformation of Marx's thought mentioned above, the influence of a work entitled Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy (Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalökonomie; written by the young Engels in December 1843 and January 1844 and sent to Marx in January for publication in Deutsch-Französischen Jahrbüchern) was very important. Even in 1859 Marx wrote about these Outlines in terms of the highest praise.
Alienation, according to this early work of Engels, is due to a particular mode of production which "turns all natural and rational relations upside-down". It can be called, therefore, the "unconscious condition of mankind". Engels' alternative to this mode of production is formulated in the concrete programme of socialising private property: "If we abandon private property, then all these unnatural divisions disappear. The difference between interest and profit disappears; capital is nothing without labour, without movement. The significance of profit is reduced to the weight which capital carries in the determination of the costs of production; and profit thus remains inherent in capital, in the same way as capital itself reverts to its original unity with labour.
The solution conceived in these terms would also show a way out from the contradictions of the "unconscious conditions of mankind", defined in this connection as economic crises: "Produce with consciousness as human beings – not as dispersed atoms without consciousness of your species– and you are beyond all these artificial and untenable antitheses. But as long as you continue to produce in the present unconscious, thoughtless manner, at the mercy of chance– for just as long trade crises will remain".
Stimulated by this work of the young Engels, Marx intensified his study of the classics of political economy. (A few months later he also met Engels who was just returning from England and could recall his observations in the industrially most advanced country.) The outcome of Marx's intensive study of political economy was his great work known by the title Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. They show a fundamental affinity of approach with the work of the young Engels but their scope is incomparably broader. They embrace and relate all the basic philosophical problems to the fact of labour's self-alienation, from the question of freedom to that of the meaning of life (see Chapter VI), from the genesis of modern society to the relationship between individuality and man's "communal being", from the production of "artificial appetites" to the "alienation of the senses", and from an assessment of the nature and function of Philosophy, Art, Religion and Law to the problems of a possible "reintegration of human life" in the real world, by means of a "positive transcendence" instead of the merely conceptual "Aufhebung" of alienation.
The converging point of the heterogeneous aspects of alienation is the notion of "labour" (Arbeit). In the Manuscripts of 1844 labour is considered both in general – as "productive activity" the fundamental ontological determination of "humanness ("menschliches Dasein", i.e. really human mode of existence) – and in particular, as having the form of capitalistic "division of labour". It is in this latter form – capitalistically structured activity – that "labour" is the ground of all alienation.
"Activity" (Tätigkeit), "division of labour" (Teilung der Arbeit), "exchange" (Austausch) and "private property" (Privateigentum) are the key concepts of this approach to the problematics of alienation. The ideal of a "positive transcendence" of alienation is formulated as a necessary socio-historical supersession of the "mediations": Private Property–Exchange–Division of Labour which interpose themselves between man and his activity and prevent him from finding fulfilment in his labour, in the exercise of his productive (creative) abilities, and in the human appropriation of the products of his activity.
Marx's critique of alienation is thus formulated as a rejection of these mediations. It is vitally important to stress in this connection that this rejection does not imply in any way a negation of all mediation. On the contrary: this is the first truly dialectical grasp of the complex relationship between mediation and immediacy in the history of philosophy, including the by no means negligible achievements of Hegel.
A rejection of all mediation would be dangerously near to sheer mysticism in its idealisation of the "identity of Subject and Object". What Marx opposes as alienation is not mediation in general but a set of second order mediations (Private Property–Exchange–Division of Labour), a "mediation of the mediation", i.e. a historically specific mediation of the ontologically fundamental self-mediation of man with nature. This "second order mediation" can only arise on the basis of the ontologically necessary "first order mediation"– as the specific, alienated form of the latter. But the "first order mediation" itself – productive activity as such – is an absolute ontological factor of the human predicament. (We shall return to this problematics under both its aspects – i.e. both as "first order mediation" and as alienated "mediation of the mediation" in a moment.)
Labour (productive activity) is the one and only absolute factor in the whole complex: Labour–Division of Labour–Private Property–Exchange. (Absolute because the human mode of existence is inconceivable without the transformations of nature accomplished by productive activity.) Consequently any attempt at overcoming alienation must define itself in relation to this absolute as opposed to its manifestation in an alienated form. But in order to formulate the question of a positive transcendence of alienation in the actual world one must realise, from the earlier mentioned standpoint of the "outsider", that the given form of labour (Wage Labour) is related to human activity in general as the particular to the universal. If this is not seen, if "productive activity" is not differentiated into its radically different aspects, if the ontologically absolute factor is not distinguished from the historically specific form, if, that is, activity is conceived – because of the absolutisation of a particular form of activity – as a homogeneous entity, the question of an actual (practical) transcendence of alienation cannot possibly arise. If Private Property and Exchange are considered absolute – in some way "inherent in human nature"– then Division Of Labour, the capitalistic form of productive activity as Wage Labour, must also appear as absolute, for they reciprocally imply each other. Thus the second order mediation appears as a first order mediation, i.e. an absolute ontological factor. Consequently the negation of the alienated manifestations of this mediation must assume the form of nostalgic moralising postulates (e.g. Rousseau).
The study of political economy provided Marx with a most detailed analysis of the nature and functioning of the capitalistic form of productive activity. His negation of alienation in his previous writings was centred, as we have seen, on the critique of the existing institutions and legal-political relations and "labour" appeared only negatively, as a missing determination of the individual's position in "bürgerliche Gesellschaft". In other words: it appeared as an aspect of a society in which the political and social spheres are divided in such a way that the individual's position in society is not inherent in his labour. Before the Manuscripts of 1844 the economic factor appeared only as a vaguely defined aspect of socio-political relations. Even the author of the articles On the Jewish Question and on the Hegelian Philosophy of Right did not realise the fundamental ontological importance of the sphere of production which appeared in his writings in the form of rather generic references to "needs" (Bedürfnisse) in general. Consequently Marx was unable to grasp in a comprehensive way the complex hierarchy of the various kinds and forms of human activity: their reciprocal interrelations within a structured whole.
All this is very different in the Manuscripts of 1844. In this work Marx's ontological starting point is the self-evident fact that man, a specific part of nature (i.e. a being with physical needs historically prior to all others) must produce in order to sustain himself, in order to satisfy these needs. However, he can only satisfy these primitive needs by necessarily creating, in the course of their satisfaction through his productive activity, a complex hierarchy of non-physical needs which thus become necessary conditions for the gratification of his original physical needs as well. Human activities and needs of a "spiritual" kind thus have their ultimate ontological foundation in the sphere of material production as specific expressions of human interchange with nature, mediated in complex ways and forms. As Marx puts it: "the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the begetting of man through human labour, nothing but the coming-to-be [Werden] of nature for man". Productive activity is, therefore, the mediator in the "subject-object relationship" between man and nature. A mediator that enables man to lead a human mode of existence, ensuring that he does not fall back into nature, does not dissolve himself within the "object". "Man lives on nature", writes Marx, "– means that 'nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous intercourse if he is not to die. That man's physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature".
Productive activity is hence the source of consciousness and "alienated consciousness" is the reflection of alienated activity or of the alienation of activity, i.e. of labour's self-alienation.
Marx uses the expression: "man's inorganic body", which is not simply that which is given by nature, but the concrete expression and embodiment of a historically given stage and structure of productive activity in the form of its products, from material goods to works of art. As a result of the alienation of labour, "man's inorganic body" appears to be merely external to him and therefore it can be turned into a commodity. Everything is "reified", and the fundamental ontological relations are turned upside down. The individual is confronted with mere objects (things, commodities), once his "inorganic body"– "worked-up nature" and externalised productive power – has been alienated from him. He has no consciousness of being a "species being". (A "Gattungswesen"– i.e. a being that has the consciousness of the species to which it belongs, or, to put it in another way, a being whose essence does not coincide directly with its individuality. Man is the only being that can have such a "species-consciousness"– both subjectively, in his conscious awareness of the species to which he belongs, and in the objectified forms of this "species-consciousness", from industry to institutions and to works of art – and thus he is the only "species being".)
Productive activity in the form dominated by capitalistic isolation – when "men produce as dispersed atoms without consciousness of their species"– cannot adequately fulfil the function of mediating man with nature because it "reifies" man and his relations and reduces him to the state of animal nature. In place of man's "consciousness of his species" we find a cult of privacy and an idealisation of the abstract individual. Thus by identifying the human essence with mere individuality, man's biological nature is confounded with his proper, specifically human, nature. For mere individuality requires only means to its subsistence, but not specifically human – humanly-natural and naturally-human, i.e. social-forms of self-fulfilment which are at the same time also adequate manifestations of the life-activity of a "Gattungswesen", a "species being". "Man is a species being not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species as his object (his own as well as those of other things) but – and this is only another way of expressing it – but also because he treats himself as the actual, living species;'because he treats himself as a universal and therefore a free being". The mystifying cult of the abstract individual, by contrast, indicates as man's nature an attribute – mere individuality – which is a universal category of nature in general, and by no means something specifically human. (See Marx's praise of Hobbes for having recognised in nature the dominance of individuality in his principle of bellum omnium contra omnes.)
Productive activity is, then, alienated activity when it departs from its proper function of humanly mediating in the subject-object relationship between man and nature, and tends, instead, to make the isolated and reified individual to be reabsorbed by "nature". This can happen even at a highly developed stage of civilisation if man is subjected, as the young Engels says, to "a natural law based on the unconsciousness of the participants". (Marx has integrated this idea of the young Engels into his own system and more than once referred to this "natural law" of capitalism not only in the Manuscripts of 1844 but in his Capital as well.
Thus Marx's protest against alienation, privatisation and reification does not involve him in the contradictions of an idealisation of some kind of a "natural state". There is no trace of a sentimental or romantic nostalgia for nature in his conception. His programme, in the critical references to "artificial appetites" etc., does not advocate a return to "nature", to a "natural" set of primitive, or "simple", needs but the "full realisation of man's nature" through an adequately self-mediating human activity. "Man's nature" (his "specific being") means precisely distinctiveness from nature in general. The relationship of man with nature is "self-mediating" in a twofold sense. First, because it is nature that mediates itself with itself in man. And secondly, because the mediating activity itself is nothing but man's attribute, located in a specific part of nature. Thus in productive activity, under the first of its dual ontological aspects, nature mediates itself with nature, and, under its second ontological aspect – in virtue of the fact that productive activity is inherently social activity – man mediates himself with man.
The second order mediations mentioned above (institutionalised in the form of capitalistic Division Of Labour–Private Property–Exchange) disrupt this relationship and subordinate productive activity itself, under the rule of a blind "natural law", to the requirements of commodity-production destined to ensure the reproduction of the isolated and reified individual who is but an appendage of this system of "economic determinations".
Man's productive activity cannot bring him fulfilment because the institutionalised second order mediations interpose themselves between, man and his activity, between man and nature, and between man and man. (The last two are already implied in the first, i.e. in the interposition of capitalistic second order mediations between man and his activity, in the subordination of productive activity to these mediations. For if man's self-mediation is further mediated by the capitalistically institutionalised form of productive activity, then nature cannot mediate itself with nature and man cannot mediate himself with man. On the contrary, man is confronted by nature in a hostile fashion, under the rule of a "natural law" blindly prevailing through the mechanisms of the market (Exchange) and, on the other hand, man is confronted by man in a hostile fashion in the antagonism between Capital and Labour. The original interrelationship of man with nature is transformed into the relationship between Wage Labour and Capital, and as far as the individual worker is concerned, the aim of his activity is necessarily confined to his self-reproduction as a mere individual, in his physical being. Thus means become ultimate ends while human ends are turned into mere means subordinated to the reified ends of this institutionalised system of second order mediations.)
An adequate negation of alienation is, therefore, inseparable from the radical negation of capitalistic second order mediations. If, however, they are taken for granted – as for instance in the writings of political economists as well as of Hegel (and even in Rousseau's conception as a whole) – the critique of the various manifestations of alienation is bound to remain partial or illusory, or both. The "uncritical positivism" of political economists needs no further comment, only the remark that its contradictions greatly helped Marx in his attempts at clarifying his own position. Rousseau despite his radical opposition to certain phenomena of alienation, could not break out from a vicious circle because he reversed the actual ontological relationships, assigning priority to the second order mediations over the first. Thus he found himself trapped by an insoluble contradiction of his own making: the idealisation of a fictitious "fair exchange" opposed, sentimentally, to the ontologically fundamental first order mediations, i.e. in Rousseau's terminology, to "civilisation". As far as Hegel is concerned, he identified "objectification" and "alienation" partly because he was far too great a realist to indulge in a romantic negation of the ontologically fundamental self-mediation (and self-genesis) of man through his activity (on the contrary, he was the first to grasp this ontological relationship, although in an "abstract, speculative" manner), and partly because, in virtue of his social standpoint, he could not oppose the capitalistic form of second order mediations. Consequently he fused the two sets of mediations in the concept of "objectifying alienation" and "alienating objectification": a concept that a priori excluded from his system the possibility of envisaging an actual (practical) supersession of alienation.
It was Marx's great historical achievement to cut the "Gordian knot" of these mystifyingly complex sets of mediations, by asserting the absolute validity of the ontologically fundamental first order mediation (in opposition to romantic and Utopian advocates of a direct unity) against its alienation in the form of capitalistic Division Of Labour–Private Property and Exchange. This great theoretical discovery opened up the road to a "scientific demystification" as well as an actual, practical negation of the capitalistic mode of production.

4. Monistic Materialism

In elaborating a solution to the complex issues of alienation much depends on the "Archimedean point" or common denominator of the particular philosophical system. For Marx, in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 this common denominator was, as already mentioned, the concept of a capitalistic "alienation of labour". He emphasised its importance as follows: "The examination of division of labour and exchange is of extreme interest, because these are perceptibly alienated expressions of human activity and of essential human power as a species activity and power".
If, however, one's centre of reference is "religious alienation", as in Feuerbach's case, nothing follows from it as regards actual, practical alienation. "Religious estrangement as such occurs only in the realm of consciousness, of man's inner life, but economic estrangement is that of real life; its transcendence therefore embraces both aspects". Feuerbach wanted to tackle the problems of alienation in terms of real life (this programmatic affinity explains Marx's attachment to Feuerbach in a certain period of his development), in opposition to the Hegelian solution, but because of the abstractness of his viewpoint: idealised "man" ("human essence" taken generically, and not as "the ensemble of social relations" [Theses on Feuerbach]), his position remained basically dualistic, offering no real solution to the analysed problems.
The main importance of the classics of political economy for Marx's intellectual development was that by throwing light on the palpable sphere of economics (analysed by them, as regards the capitalistic stage of production, in the most concrete terms) they helped him to concentrate on the "perceptibly alienated expressions of human activity". His awareness of the importance of productive activity enabled Marx to identify, with utmost clarity, the contradictions of a non-mediated, undialectical, "dualistic materialism".
It is significant that Marx's intense study of political economy sharpened his criticism of Feuerbach and, at the same time, pushed into the foreground the affinities of Marxian thought with certain characteristics of the Hegelian philosophy. It may seem paradoxical at first that, in spite of the materialistic conception shared by both Marx and Feuerbach, and in spite of the much closer political affinity between them than between Marx and Hegel, the relationship of the historical materialist Marx and the idealist Hegel is incomparably more deeply rooted than that between Marx and Feuerbach. The first embraces the totality of Marx's development whereas the second is confined to an early, and transitory, stage.
The reason is to be found in the basically monistic character of the Hegelian philosophy in contrast to Feuerbach's dualism. In the famous passage in which Marx distinguishes his position from the Hegelian dialectic he also emphasises the deep affinity, insisting on the necessity of turning "right side up again" that which in Hegel's philosophy is "standing on its head". [Theses on Feuerbach] But it would be impossible to turn the Hegelian conception "right side up again", in order to incorporate its "rational kernel" into Marx's system, if there did not lie at the basis of their "opposite" philosophical approaches the common characteristics of two – ideologically different, indeed opposite – monistic conceptions. For dualism remains dualism even if it is turned "the other way round".
By contrast, we can see in Marx's Theses on Feuerbach his complete rejection of Feuerbach's ontological and epistemological dualism: "The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing (Gegenstand), reality, sensuousness is conceived only in the form of the object (Objekt) or of contemplation (Anschauung), but not as human sensuous activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence it happened that the active side, in contradistinction to materialism, was developed by idealism – but only abstractly, since of course, idealism does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really differentiated from thought-objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective (gegenständliche) activity. Hence, in the Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-Judaical form of appearance." [Theses on Feuerbach]
This reference to "practice" is very similar to Goethe's principle concerning Experiment as Mediator between Object and Subject (Der Versuch als Vermittler von Objekt und Subjekt) and the second thesis on Feuerbach emphasises this similarity even more strongly. Now the lack of such mediator in Feuerbach's philosophy means that its dualism cannot be overcome. On the contrary, it assumes at the level of social theory the sharpest possible form: "The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, forgets that it is men that change circumstances and that the educator himself needs educating. Hence this doctrine necessarily arrives at dividing society into two parts, of which one is superior to society." [Theses on Feuerbach] This is why Feuerbach's system, in spite of the philosopher's materialistic approach, and in spite of his starting out "from the fact of religious self-alienation", [Theses on Feuerbach] cannot be in a lasting agreement with the Marxian philosophy. For a kind of "materialistic dualism" is manifest in Feuerbach's philosophy at every level, with all the contradictions involved in it. (Cf. "abstract thinking"; "intuition"; "contemplation"; "Anschauung"; "isolated individual"; "human essence"; "abstract individual"; "human species"; and so on.)
The secret of Marx's success in radically transcending the limitations of dualistic, contemplative materialism is his unparalleled dialectical grasp of the category of mediation, for no philosophical system can be monistic without conceptually mastering, in one form or another, the complex dialectical interrelationship between mediation and totality. It goes without saying, this applies – mutatis mutandis– to the Hegelian philosophy as well. Hegel's idealistic monism has for its centre of reference his concept of "activity" as "mediator between Subject and Object". But, of course, the Hegelian concept of "activity" is "abstract mental activity" which can mediate only "thought-entities". ("Object", in Hegel's philosophy is "alienated Subject", "externalised World Spirit" etc., i.e. in the last analysis it is a pseudo-object.) In this characteristic of the Hegelian philosophy the inner contradictions of its concept of mediation come to the fore. For Hegel is not a "mystifier" because "he is an idealist" : to say this would amount to hardly more than an unrewarding tautology. Rather, he is an idealist mystifier because of the inherently contradictory character of his concept of mediation, i.e. because of the taboos he imposes upon himself as regards the second order mediations while he is absolutising these – historically specific – forms of capitalistic "mediation of the mediation". The philosophical repercussions of such a step are far-reaching, affecting all his main categories, from the assumed identity of "alienation" and "objectification" to the ultimate identity of "subject" and "object", as well as to the conception of "Aufhebung" as a merely conceptual "reconciliation" of the subject with itself. (Even the "nostalgia" for the original direct unity appears – though in an "abstract, speculative, logical form"– in the conceptual opposition between "Ent-äusserung", alienation, and "Er-innerung", i.e. turning "inwards", remembering a past necessarily gone for ever.)
Only in Marx's monistic materialism can we find a coherent comprehension of "objective totality" as "sensuous reality", and a correspondingly valid differentiation between subject and object, thanks to his concept of mediation as ontologically fundamental productive activity, and thanks to his grasp of the historically specific, second order mediations through which the ontological foundation of human existence is alienated from man in the capitalist order of society.

5. The Transformation of Hegel's Idea of "Activity"

Activity appeared in the writing of the classics of political economy as something concrete, belonging to the palpable manifestations of real life. It was, however, confined in their conception to a particular sphere: that of manufacture and commerce, considered completely ahistorically. It was Hegel's great theoretical achievement to make universal the philosophical importance of activity, if even he did this in an abstract form, for reasons mentioned already.
Marx writes in his Manuscripts of 1844 about the magnitude as well as the limitations of the Hegelian achievements: "Hegel's standpoint is that of modern political economy. He grasps labour as the essence of man – as man's essence in the act of proving itself: he sees only the positive, not the negative side of labour. Labour is man's coming-to-be for himself within alienation, or as alienated man. The only labour which Hegel knows and recognises is abstractly mental labour". Thus with Hegel "activity" becomes a term of crucial importance, meant to explain human genesis and development in general. But the Hegelian concept of "activity" acquires this universal character at the price of losing the sensuous form "labour" had in political economy. (That the political economist conception of "labour" was one-sided, partial, and ahistorical, does not concern us here where the point at stake is the relative historical significance of this conception.)
Marx's concept of "activity" as practice or "productive activity"– identified both in its positive sense (as human objectification and "self-development", as man's necessary self-mediation with nature) and in its negative sense (as alienation or second order mediation) resembles the political economist's conception in that it is conceived in a sensuous form. Its theoretical function is, however, radically different. For Marx realises that the non-alienated foundation of that which is reflected in an alienated form in political economy as a particular sphere is the fundamental ontological sphere of human existence and therefore it is the ultimate foundation of all kinds and forms of activity. Thus labour, in its "sensuous form", assumes its universal significance in Marx's philosophy. It becomes not only the key to understanding the determinations inherent in all forms of alienation but also the centre of reference of his practical strategy aimed at the actual supersession of capitalistic alienation.
To accomplish the Marxian formulation of the central issues of alienation, a critical incorporation of Hegel's achievements into Marx's thought was of the greatest importance. By becoming aware of the universal philosophical significance of productive activity Marx made a decisive step forward with respect to the writings of political economy and thus he was enabled to work out certain objective implications of the latter which could not be realised by the political economists themselves because of the partial and unhistorical character of their approach. We can see this clearly expressed in the following words of Marx: "To assert that division of labour and exchange rest on private property is nothing short of asserting that labour is the essence of private property – an assertion which the political economist cannot prove and which we wish to prove for him. Precisely in the fact that division of labour and exchange are embodiments of private property lies the twofold proof, on the one hand that human life required private property for its realisation, and on the other hand that it now requires the supersession of private property". Thus political economy cannot go to the roots of the matter. It conceives a particular form of activity (capitalistic division of labour) as the universal and absolute form of productive activity. Consequently in the reasoning of political economists the ultimate point of reference cannot be activity itself in view of the fact that a particular form of activity – the historically established socioeconomic practice of capitalism – is absolutised by them.
Political economy evidently could not assume as its ultimate point of reference activity in general (i.e. productive activity as such: this absolute condition of human existence) because such a step would have made impossible the absolutisation of a particular form of activity. The only type of "absolute" which enabled them to draw the desired conclusions was a circular one: namely the assumption of the basic characteristics of the specific form of activity whose absoluteness they wanted to demonstrate as being necessarily inherent in "human nature". Thus the historical fact of capitalistic Exchange appeared in an idealised form on the absolute plane of "human nature" as a "propensity to exchange and barter" (Adam Smith) from which it could be easily deduced that the "commercial" form of society, based on the capitalistic division of labour, is also the "natural" form of society.
If the absolute factor is identified with private property (or with some fictitious "propensity to exchange and barter", which is only another way of saying the same thing), then we are confronted with an insoluble contradiction between natural and human, even if this contradiction is hidden beneath the rhetorical assumption of a harmonious relationship between "human nature" and capitalistic mode of production. For if one assumes a fixed human nature (e.g. a "propensity to exchange and barter"), then the really natural and absolute necessity (expressed in the self-evident truth of the words: "man must produce if he is not to die") is subordinated to a pseudo-natural order. (The proposition equivalent to the Marxian self-evident truth, according to the alleged "natural order" of "human nature", should read: "man must exchange and barter if he is not to die", which is by no means true, let alone self-evidently true.) Thus the ontologically fundamental dimension of human existence is displaced from its natural and absolute status to a secondary one. This is, of course, reflected in the scale of values of the society which takes as its ultimate point of reference the system of exchange and barter: if the capitalistic order of things is challenged, this appears to the "political economists" as though the very existence of mankind is endangered. This is why the supersession of alienation cannot conceivably be included in the programme of political economists, except perhaps in the form of illusorily advocating the cure of some partial effects of the capitalistic alienation of labour which is idealised by them, as a system, as man's "necessary" and "natural" mode of existence. And this is why the attitude of political economists to alienation must remain, on the whole, one that cannot be called other than "uncritical positivism".
Hegel supersedes, to some extent, this contradiction of political economy, by conceiving activity in general as the absolute condition of historical genesis. Paradoxically, however, he destroys his own achievements, reproducing the contradictions of political economy at another level. Insofar as he considers "activity" as the absolute condition of historical genesis, logically prior to the form of externalisation, he can – indeed he must – raise the question of an "Aufhebung" of alienation; for the latter arises in opposition to the original direct unity of the "Absolute" with itself. Since, however, he cannot distinguish, as we have seen, between the "externalised" form of activity and its "alienated" manifestations, and since it is inconceivable to negate "externalisation" without negating the absolute condition: activity itself, his concept of "Aufhebung" cannot be other than an abstract, imaginary negation of alienation as objectification. Thus Hegel, in the end, assigns the same characteristic of untranscendable absoluteness and universality to the alienated form of objectification as to activity itself and therefore he conceptually nullifies the possibility of an actual supersession of alienation. (It goes without saying that a form, or some form of externalisation– i.e. objectification itself – is as absolute a condition of development as activity itself : a non-externalised, non-objectified activity is a non-activity. In this sense some kind of mediation of the absolute ontological condition of man's interchange with nature is an equally absolute necessity. The question is, however, whether this mediation is in agreement with the objective ontological character of productive activity as the fundamental condition of human existence or alien to it, as in the case of capitalistic second order mediations.)
Marx draws the conceptual line of demarcation between Labour as "Lebensiusserung" (manifestation of life) and as "Lebensentäusserung" (alienation of life). Labour is "Lebensentäusserung" when "I work in order to live, in order to produce a means to living, but my work itself is not living", i.e. my activity is forced upon me "by an external necessity" instead of being motivated by a need corresponding to an "inner necessity" [Comments on James Mill]
In the same way, Marx makes the distinction between an adequate mediation of man with man on the one hand and "alienated mediation" of human activity through the intermediary of things on the other hand. In the second type of mediation – "in the alienation of the mediating activity itself" (indem der Mensch these vermittelnde Tätigkeit selbst entäussert) – man is active as a "dehumanised man" (entmenschter Mensch). Thus human productive activity is under the rule of "an alien mediator" (fremder Mittler) – "instead of man himself being the mediator for man" (statt class der Mensch selbst der Mittler fair den Menschen sein sollte) and consequently labour assumes the form of an "alienated mediation" (entäusserte Vermittlung) of human productive activity."
Formulated in these terms, the question of "Aufhebung" ceases to be an imaginary act of the "Subject" and becomes a concrete, practical issue for real man. This conception envisages the supersession of alienation through the abolition of "alienated mediation" (i.e. of capitalistically institutionalised second order mediation), through the liberation of labour from its reified subjection to the power of things, to "external necessity", and through the conscious enhancing of man's "inner need" for being humanly active and finding fulfilment for the powers inherent in him in his productive activity itself as well as in the human enjoyment of the non-alienated products of his activity."
With the elaboration of these concepts – which fully master the mystifying complexity of alienation that defeated no less a dialectician than Hegel himself – Marx's system in statu nascendi is virtually brought to its accomplishment. His radical ideas concerning the world of alienation and the conditions of its supersession are now coherently synthesised within the general outlines of a monumental, comprehensive vision. Much remains, of course, to be further elaborated in all its complexity, for the task undertaken is "Titanenartig". But all further concretisations and modifications of Marx's conception – including some major discoveries of the older Marx – are realised on the conceptual basis of the great philosophical achievements so clearly in evidence in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.

poet816 | August 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm | Tags: Alienation, Critical Theory, Marx, Philosophy | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p4hBlw-5L
Comment   See all comments   Like
Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from NeoBohemia.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://neobohemia816.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/genesis-of-marxs-theory-of-alienation/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


Ever Wonder What is Jewish? "A Slaughter of Innocents"

$
0
0
THE ABSURD TIMES




MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2014

"A Slaughter of Innocents": Henry Siegman, a Venerable Jewish Voice for Peace, on Gaza

Today, a special with Henry Siegman, the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress, long described as one of the nation’s "big three" Jewish organizations along with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Henry Siegman was born in 1930 in Frankfurt, Germany. Three years later, the Nazis came to power. After fleeing Nazi troops in Belgium, his family eventually moved to the United States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement, pushing for the creation of a Jewish state. In New York, Siegman studied and was ordained as an Orthodox rabbi by Yeshiva Torah Vodaas. He later became head of the Synagogue Council of America. After his time at the American Jewish Congress, Siegman became a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He now serves as president of the U.S./Middle East Project.
Over the years, Siegman has become a vocal critic of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories and has urged Israel to engage with Hamas. He has called the Palestinian struggle for a state "the mirror image of the Zionist movement" that led to the founding of Israel in 1948. In July, wrote an op-ed for Politico headlined, "Israel Provoked This War." Democracy Now! hosts Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh sat down with him on July 29 — in the midst of Israel’s offensive in Gaza.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Isis and NATO: Really stupid activity

$
0
0




  THE ABSURD TIMES






Illustration: Saladin




Ok, now things are getting too weird.  Looking for a way to defeat the Caliphate by air?  Do what Biden says: Follow them to the gates of hell where they will have to watch a Joan Rivers Marathon eternally.  Or everyone could apply for a job with Al Baghdadi, Calif, IS, (sorry, zip code unknown) 

Everyone seems to think they have a perverted interpretation of Islam.  Actually, they have a hero in Saladin, not Mohammed, and they have him wrong too.

Yet, who was Saladin?  His history has been ignored in the West.  In fact, I did not even know of him until my senior year when I took a course in Spenser.  He wrote the third longest poem in the English language, and it was only 25% completed.  It was published in 1595.  The poem itself has this reputation: "Only 5 people have read it from cover to cover and three of them are still asleep."  Keats thought it was great.  No, I'm not going into telling you who Keats was. 

Saladin was the great warrior in the mid to late medieval period (ca. 1187, esp. or so) who rid the Mideast from the pillagers known as the "crusaders".  The Crusades were just another series of invasions and rapine disguised as "Holy Wars".  It is a hallmark of monotheism that war is carried out in "God's" name.  The ancient Greeks had a lot of wars and a lot of gods, but they just called upon their god's for assistance from time to time, much to their regret.  In fact, I believe it was Homer who said "When the Gods wish to laugh at us, they grant our wishes."  Anyway, Saladin put an end to the crusades or at least started the liberation of Palestine.  Today, Palestinians are basically secular.  Leave it to George Bush to resurrect the term "Crusades", much to our regret.

Putin also comes into this.  The Caliphate threatened him because he supports Assad.  Now, they have made a big mistake.  Remember the pirates off of Somalia?  They were getting one ship after antoher until they captured a Russian one.  That was it.  They never even looked at another Russian ship because of the response.

Also, if this group is such a threat, why not join Assad and Iran, its natural enemies, and work together?  Another example of stupidity.

The next issue is Ukraine.  The two interviews sum up the situation very well, so there is no point in further elaborating.  You might also want to consult the article in the Nation.  The point about Neo-McCarthyism is well-taken.

Well, here are two interiews on Russia, one with Stephen Cohen and the other with a former Ambassador to Russia.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2014

Ukraine Ceasefire Takes Hold, but an Expanding NATO on Russia’s Borders Raises Threat of Nuclear War

The Ukrainian government and pro-Russian rebels are reportedly set to sign a ceasefire today aimed at ending over six months of fighting that has killed at least 2,600 people and displaced over a million. The deal is expected this morning in the Belarusian capital of Minsk as President Obama and European leaders meet in Wales for a major NATO summit. The ceasefire comes at a time when the Ukrainian military has suffered a number of defeats at the hands of the Russian-backed rebels. In the hours leading up to the reported ceasefire, pro-Russian rebels launched another offensive to take the port city of Mariupol, which stands about halfway between Russia and the Crimea region. The Ukrainian government and NATO have accused Russia of sending forces into Ukraine, a claim Moscow denies. The new developments in Ukraine come as NATO has announced plans to create a new rapid reaction force in response to the Ukraine crisis. We are joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, and the author of numerous books on Russia and the Soviet Union.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, now to international news.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian rebels are reportedly set to sign a ceasefire today aimed at ending over six months of fighting in eastern Ukraine that has killed at least 2,600 people and displaced over one million. The deal is expected to be signed in the Belarusian capital Minsk as President Obama and European leaders meet in Wales for a major NATO summit. The ceasefire comes at a time when the Ukrainian military has suffered a number of defeats at the hands of the Russian-backed rebels.
A new dispatch from The New York Review of Books reveals the remnants of at least 68 Ukrainian military vehicles, tanks, armored personnel carriers, pickups, buses and trucks are littered along one 16-mile stretch in eastern Ukraine where the rebels launched an offensive last week. The reporter, Tim Judah, writes, quote, "The scale of the devastation suffered by Ukrainian forces in southeastern Ukraine over the last week has to be seen to be believed. It amounts to a catastrophic defeat and will long be remembered by embittered Ukrainians as among the darkest days of their history."
In the hours leading up to the ceasefire, pro-Russian rebels launched another offensive to take the port city of Mariupol, which stands about halfway between Russia and the Crimea region. The Ukrainian government and NATO have accused Russia of sending forces into Ukraine, a claim that Moscow continues to deny.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile in Wales, NATO has announced plans to create a new rapid reaction force in response to the Ukraine crisis. British Prime Minister David Cameron said the new force could be deployed anywhere in the world in two to five days.
PRIME MINISTER DAVID CAMERON: So we must be able to act more swiftly. In 2002, NATO stood down its high-readiness force. I hope that today we can agree a multinational spearhead force, deployable anywhere in the world in just two to five days. This would be part of a reformed NATO response force, with headquarters in Poland, forward units in the eastern allies, and pre-positioned equipment and infrastructure to allow more exercises and, if necessary, rapid reinforcement. If we can agree this, the United Kingdom will contribute 3,500 personnel to this multinational force.
AMY GOODMAN: In another development, the Pentagon has announced 200 U.S. troops will be sent to Ukraine later this month for a multinational military exercise dubbed Rapid Trident. Another 280 U.S. troops will work with Ukrainian forces next week for a military exercise aboard the USS Ross in the Black Sea.
To talk more about the crisis in Ukraine and the NATO summit, we’re joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, also the author of a number of books on Russia and the Soviet Union. His latest piece in The Nation is headlined "Patriotic Heresy vs. the New Cold War: Neo-McCarthyites Have Stifled Democratic Debate on Russia and Ukraine."
So, welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Cohen. Talk about the latest developments, both the decisions out of NATO and what’s happening on the ground in Ukraine.
STEPHEN COHEN: One latest development is related to what Juan just said about New York kids. There are about a million refugees from eastern Ukraine, most of them having fled to Russia, a lot of kids. Traditionally in Ukraine and Russia, the first day of school is September 1. There are about 50,000 to 70,000 kids who needed to have started school. The Russians have made every effort to get them in school, but there are a lot of little Ukrainian kids who won’t be going to school this September yet, because they’re living in refugee camps. And that’s the story, of course.
This is a horrific, tragic, completely unnecessary war in eastern Ukraine. In my own judgment, we have contributed mightily to this tragedy. I would say that historians one day will look back and say that America has blood on its hands. Three thousand people have died, most of them civilians who couldn’t move quickly. That’s women with small children, older women. A million refugees. Talk of a ceasefire that might go into place today, which would be wonderful, because nobody else should die for absolutely no reason.
But what’s driving the new developments, and partially the NATO meeting in Wales, but this stunning development, that Juan mentioned, reported in The New York Review of Books, though a handful of us in this country have been trying to get it into the media for nearly two weeks, is that it appeared that the Ukrainian army would conquer eastern Ukraine. But what they were doing is sitting outside the cities, bombarding these cities with aircraft, rockets, heavy artillery. That’s what caused the 3,000 deaths and the refugees. They’ve seriously damaged the entire infrastructure, industrial infrastructure, of Ukraine, which is in these eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, the so-called Donbas region.
It turned out, though, that the Ukrainian army didn’t want to enter these cities, where the rebels were embedded, ensconced. It’s their homes; these fighters are mainly from these cities. And while this killing was going on, the rebels were regrouping. Now, there’s an argument: How much help did they get from Russia? Some people are saying Russia invaded. Others say, no, Russia just gave them some technical and organizational support. But whatever happened in the last 10 days, there’s been one of the most remarkable military turnarounds we’ve witnessed in many years, and the Ukrainian army is not only being defeated, but it’s on the run. It’s fleeing. It wants no more of this. It’s leaving its heavy equipment behind. It’s really in full-scale retreat, except in one place, the city Juan mentioned, Mariupol, where there’s a fight going on as we talk now. The rebels have the city encircled. Whether that fighting will stop if the ceasefire is announced in the next couple hours, we don’t know. It’s a very important city. But everything has now changed. If there’s negotiation, the government of Ukraine, Poroshenko, the president, our President Obama and NATOthought that when negotiations began, the West would dictate the terms to Putin because they won the war in Ukraine. Now it’s the reverse.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, what about this whole issue of United States forces now actually being introduced, the exercises in Ukraine? To what degree do you see the Obama administration being drawn more and more into the conflict?
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, we have to ask ourselves, because we don’t fully know, because Obama is a kind of aloof figure who disappears in moments like this, then reappears and says kind of ignomatic things. But are we being drawn into it, or are we driving these events? It has been true, ever since NATO was created, that the United States controlled NATO. Now, it is also true now that there—that NATO is deeply divided on the Ukrainian issue. There’s a war party. And the war party is led by Poland, the three Baltic states, to a certain extent Romania but not so much, and Britain. Then there’s a party that wants to accommodate Russia, that thinks that this is not entirely Russia’s fault. And moreover, these people—the Germans, the French, the Spanish, the Italians—depend on Russia, in many ways, for their economic prosperity. They want to negotiate, not punish Russia. Where is Obama in this? It would appear nowhere, except occasionally he comes in, as he did in Estonia—was it yesterday or the day before?—and seem to give a speech that favors the war party.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to the comments of President Obama when he was in the former Soviet republic of Estonia blaming Russia for the fighting and vowing to defend the Baltic states.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It was not the government of Kiev that destabilized eastern Ukraine. It’s been the pro-Russian separatists, who are encouraged by Russia, financed by Russia, trained by Russia, supplied by Russia and armed by Russia. And the Russian forces that have now moved into Ukraine are not on a humanitarian or peacekeeping mission. They are Russian combat forces with Russian weapons in Russian tanks.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama. Professor Stephen Cohen?
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, it is. It certainly is President Obama. Look, here’s the underlying problem. What Obama just said implies, if not asserts, that if it wasn’t for Russia, Ukraine would be stable, that Russia has destabilized Ukraine. No serious person would believe that to be the case. Ukraine is in the throes of a civil war, which was precipitated by the political crisis that occurred in Ukraine last November and then this February, when the elected president of Ukraine was overthrown by a street mob, and that set off a civil war, primarily between the west, including Kiev, and the east, but not only. There’s a central Ukraine that’s here and there. This civil war then became, as I said it would or might when we first started talking earlier this year, a proxy war between the United States and Russia.
Now, it’s absolutely true that Russia has made the destabilization of Ukraine worse. It’s also absolutely true that the United States has contributed to the destabilization of Ukraine. But if tomorrow the United States would go away and Russia would go away, Ukraine would still be in a civil war. And we know what civil wars are. We had one in our country. Russia had one. There were many civil wars around the world in the 20th century and elsewhere today. The point is, the only way you can end a civil war, either the one side completely conquers and the other side gives up, as happened with the Confederacy in the United States, or there’s a stalemate or somebody says, "Enough killing, because these are brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers, they’re part of the same family," and you negotiate.
So we will see later today, perhaps, or tomorrow whether this ceasefire comes and if it holds. Now, negotiating a civil war is terribly complex. In some ways, we’re still arguing about the American Civil War. I grew up in Kentucky, segregated Kentucky, and in my childhood, people were still claiming we, the South, won. So, this isn’t going to end if the United States and Russia goes way. But both sides have the capacity to get these negotiations going. But when Obama says that Russia destabilized Ukraine, it’s a half-truth.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Stephen Cohen, I wanted to ask you—you’ve come under some criticism by other Russia experts in the U.S. as being an apologist for the Russian intervention in Ukraine, I think in Forbes magazine. Op-ed piece there claimed that you were questioning whether Ukraine had the right to exercise control over its own territory, that it was plotting to seize its own territory. I’m wondering your response to that criticism.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, I mean, many very harsh and unpleasant, probably libelous and slanderous things have been said about me, which suggests to me that they have no factual response to me. Rather than call me a toady and an apologist and a paid hiring of the Kremlin, I’d like to hear what factual mistakes I’ve made. And I haven’t seen any, because I’m a scholar and I try not to make factual mistakes.
It’s not about whether Ukraine has the right to take back its territory. The problem is, as I just said, that a civil war began when we, the United States, and Europe backed a street coup that overthrew an elected president. When you overthrow a constitution and when you overthrow a president, you’re likely to get a civil war. It usually happens. Now, when you have a civil war, the country is divided. And in this case, the government in Kiev is trying to conquer where the rebels, so to speak, are located. The problem is that the rebel provinces do not recognize the legitimacy of the government in Kiev. The United States recognizes the legitimacy, but that doesn’t make it legitimate.
Now, let’s go to what’s going on in Kiev now. I mean, Obama also said—and I kind of chuckled and cried—that we are helping Ukraine build a democracy. What kind of democracy is unfolding in Kiev? All right, they had a presidential election. About a fifth of the country couldn’t vote. Now, Poroshenko has called a parliamentary election in October, a month from now. But where the war is, in the south and the east, they won’t vote. So you’re going to end up with a rump country, further dividing the country. Meanwhile, they’re shutting down democracy in Kiev. Communist Party is being banned. Another party that represents the east is being banned. People are being arrested. There’s censorship kicking in. There’s no democracy in Kiev, because it’s a wartime government. You just don’t get democracy. So, these assertions by the United States that we’re democracy builders, we’re virtuous, and it’s all Putin’s fault, this is—it’s worse than a half-truth; it’s actually a falsehood.
AMY GOODMAN: The possibility of Ukraine in NATO and what that means and what—
STEPHEN COHEN: Nuclear war.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain.
STEPHEN COHEN: Next question. I mean, it’s clear. It’s clear. First of all, by NATO’s own rules, Ukraine cannot join NATO, a country that does not control its own territory. In this case, Kiev controls less and less by the day. It’s lost Crimea. It’s losing the Donbas—I just described why—to the war. A country that does not control its own territory cannot join Ukraine [sic]. Those are the rules.
AMY GOODMAN: Cannot join—
STEPHEN COHEN: I mean, NATO. Secondly, you have to meet certain economic, political and military criteria to join NATO. Ukraine meets none of them. Thirdly, and most importantly, Ukraine is linked to Russia not only in terms of being Russia’s essential security zone, but it’s linked conjugally, so to speak, intermarriage. There are millions, if not tens of millions, of Russian and Ukrainians married together. Put it inNATO, and you’re going to put a barricade through millions of families. Russia will react militarily.
In fact, Russia is already reacting militarily, because look what they’re doing in Wales today. They’re going to create a so-called rapid deployment force of 4,000 fighters. What is 4,000 fighters? Fifteen thousand or less rebels in Ukraine are crushing a 50,000-member Ukrainian army. Four thousand against a million-man Russian army, it’s nonsense. The real reason for creating the so-called rapid deployment force is they say it needs infrastructure. And the infrastructure—that is, in plain language is military bases—need to be on Russia’s borders. And they’ve said where they’re going to put them: in the Baltic republic, Poland and Romania.
Now, why is this important? Because NATO has expanded for 20 years, but it’s been primarily a political expansion, bringing these countries of eastern Europe into our sphere of political influence; now it’s becoming a military expansion. So, within a short period of time, we will have a new—well, we have a new Cold War, but here’s the difference. The last Cold War, the military confrontation was in Berlin, far from Russia. Now it will be, if they go ahead with this NATO decision, right plunk on Russia’s borders. Russia will then leave the historic nuclear agreement that Reagan and Gorbachev signed in 1987 to abolish short-range nuclear missiles. It was the first time nuclear—a category of nuclear weapons had ever been abolished. Where are, by the way, the nuclear abolitionists today? Where is the grassroots movement, you know, FREEZE, SANE? Where have these people gone to? Because we’re looking at a new nuclear arms race. Russia moves these intermediate missiles now to protect its own borders, as the West comes toward Russia. And the tripwire for using these weapons is enormous.
One other thing. Russia has about, I think, 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons, sometimes called battlefield nuclear weapons. You use these for short distances. They can be fired; you don’t need an airplane or a missile to fly them. They can be fired from artillery. But they’re nuclear. They’re radioactive. They’ve never been used. Russia has about 10,000. We have about 500. Russia’s military doctrine clearly says that if Russia is threatened by overwhelming conventional forces, we will use tactical nuclear weapons. So when Obama boasts, as he has on two occasions, that our conventional weapons are vastly superior to Russia, he’s feeding into this argument by the Russian hawks that we have to get our tactical nuclear weapons ready. So, bring NATO—I mean, bring Ukraine into NATO, and all this stuff will be up and ready. And then it will just take the shootdown of a Malaysian aircraft, about which everybody has forgotten. Still nobody knows who did it. There seems to have been an agreement among the major powers not to tell us who did it. Was suggested wasn’t the rebels, wasn’t Russia, after all. But it would take something like that, which can happen in these circumstances, to launch something that was unthinkable.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean there seems to be an agreement between the major countries?
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, in addition to the insurance company for the airplane, which technically has legal responsibility, the major countries that are doing it, Britain has the black boxes, the Netherlands are involved. There was a report the other day that these parties, these states, have agreed that they would not divulge individually what they have discovered. Now, they’ve had plenty of time to interpret the black boxes. There are reports from Germany that the White House version of what happened is not true, therefore you have to look elsewhere for the culprit who did the shooting down. They’re sitting on satellite intercepts. They have the images. They won’t release the air controller’s conversations in Kiev with the doomed aircraft. Why not? Did the pilot say—let me speculate—"Oh, my god, we’re being fired on by a jet fighter next to us! What’s going on?" Because we know there were two Ukrainian jet fighters. We don’t know, but somebody knows. You might ask—you might get somebody on who’s been investigating this to find out what they actually know.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you very much—
STEPHEN COHEN: That’s a digression. I apologize.
AMY GOODMAN: No, that was very interesting. Thank you very much, Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton, author of a number of books on Russia and the Soviet Union. His latestpiece in The Nation, we’ll link to, "Patriotic Heresy vs. the New Cold War: Neo-McCarthyites Have Stifled Democratic Debate on Russia and Ukraine."
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2014

Fmr. U.S. Ambassador: To Resolve Ukraine Crisis, Address Internal Divisions & Russian Fears of NATO

Ukraine has retracted an earlier claim to have reached a ceasefire with Russia. The office of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko initially said he agreed with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on steps toward a ceasefire with pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. But the Kremlin then denied a ceasefire agreement, saying it is in no position to make a deal because it is not a party to the fighting. Ukraine has accused Russia of direct involvement in the violence amidst a recent escalation. The confusion comes as President Obama visits the former Soviet republic of Estonia ahead of a major NATO summit in Wales. On Tuesday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest outlined NATO’s plans to expand its presence in eastern Europe. Ukraine and NATO have accused Russia of sending armored columns of troops into Ukraine, but Russia has denied its troops are involved in fighting on the ground. We are joined by Jack Matlock, U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the crisis in Ukraine, where more than 2,600 people have been killed since April. Earlier today, Ukraine said its president had agreed with Russia’s Vladimir Putin on steps towards a ceasefire with pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine, but the Kremlin denied any actual truce deal had been formalized. Initially, the Ukrainian presidential website had claimed a permanent ceasefire had been reached, but then the statement was retracted.
The confusion comes as President Obama visits the former Soviet republic of Estonia ahead of a major NATO summit in Wales. On Tuesday, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest outlined NATO’s plans to expand its presence in eastern Europe.
PRESS SECRETARY JOSH EARNEST: The United States, in cooperation with our allies, plans to significantly increase the readiness of a NATO response force to ensure that the alliance is prepared to respond to threats in a timely fashion. This will involved training, exercises and discussions about what kinds of infrastructure will be required in the Baltics, in Poland, in Romania and other states on the eastern frontier to deal with the world in which they face new concerns about Russian intentions.
AMY GOODMAN: Ukraine and NATO have accused Russia of sending armored columns of troops into Ukraine, but Russia has denied its troops are involved in fighting on the ground. Over the past week, the Russian-backed rebels have made a number of advances in eastern Ukraine. On Monday, rebels took control of the airport in the city of Luhansk. Now they’re storming the airport in Donetsk, the biggest city under their control. On Tuesday, an Italian newspaper reported Putin had told outgoing European Commission President José Manuel Barroso that he could take Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, within two weeks, if he wanted to. The Kremlin said the remark was taken out of context.
Joining us now is Jack Matlock, served as U.S. ambassador to the former Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, author of several books, including Superpower Illusions: How Myths and False Ideologies Led America Astray—And How to Return to Reality, as well as Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.
Ambassador Matlock, we welcome you to Democracy Now! What do you think is most important to understand what’s happening in Ukraine today?
JACK MATLOCK: Well, I think one of the most important things to understand is that, practically speaking, the Ukrainians and the Russians have to agree on what would be an acceptable way to proceed within Ukraine. That is the fact of the matter. And one can, you know, talk all one wishes about how impermissible it is for Russia to intervene, but the fact is they are going to intervene until they are certain that there is no prospect of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. And all of the threats by NATO and so on to sort of increase defenses elsewhere is simply provocative to the Russians. Now, I’m not saying that’s right, but I am saying that’s the way Russia is going to react. And frankly, this is all predictable. And those of us who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War almost unanimously said in the 1990s, "Do not expand NATO eastward. Find a different way to protect eastern Europe, a way that includes Russia. Otherwise, eventually there’s going to be a confrontation, because there is a red line, as far as any Russian government is concerned, when it comes to Ukraine and Georgia and other former republics of the Soviet Union."
AMY GOODMAN: On Sunday—
JACK MATLOCK: I would say, with the exception of the three Baltic states. They were a special case.
AMY GOODMAN: On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for immediate negotiations on the statehood of southern and eastern Ukraine. On Monday, Putin blamed Kiev’s leadership for declining to participate in direct political talks with the separatists. This is what he said.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] What is the essence of the tragedy that is happening in Ukraine right now? I think the main reason for that is that the current Kiev leadership does not want to carry out a substantive political dialogue with the east of its country. And so, right now, in my opinion, a very important process, a process of direct talks, starts. We have been working on it for a long time, and we agreed upon that with President Poroshenko in Minsk. We start to have—or renew, to be precise—this sort of contact.
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Matlock, the significance of what President Putin is saying?
JACK MATLOCK: Well, it does seem to me that, practically speaking, there needs to be an understanding between Russia and the Ukrainians as to how to solve this problem. It is not going to be solved militarily. So the idea that we should be giving more help to the Ukrainian government in a military sense simply exacerbates the problem. And the basic problem is Ukraine is a deeply divided country. And as long as one side tries to impose its will on the other—and that is what has happened since February, the Ukrainian nationalists in the west have been trying to impose their will on the east, and the Russians aren’t going to permit that. And that is the fact of the matter. So, yes, there simply needs to be an agreement.
And most of the—I would say, the influence of the West in trying to help the Ukrainians by, I would say, defending them against the Russians tends to be provocative, because—you know, Putin is right: If he decided, he could take Kiev. Russia is a nuclear power. And Russia feels that we have ignored that, that we have insulted them time and time again, and that we are out to turn Ukraine into an American puppet that surrounds them. And, you know, with that sort of psychology, by resisting that, in Russian eyes, he has gained unprecedented popularity. So, it seems to me that we have to understand that, like it or not, the Ukrainians are going to have to make an agreement that’s acceptable to them, if they keep their unity.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking to reporters Thursday, President Obama said the U.S. will collaborate with its NATO allies in dealing with the Ukraine crisis, but he ruled out military action against Russia.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We will continue to stand firm with our allies and partners that what is happening is wrong, that there is a solution that allows Ukraine and Russia to live peacefully. But it is not in the cards for us to see a military confrontation between Russia and the United States in this region. Keep in mind, however, that I’m about to go to a NATO conference. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but a number of those states that are close by are. And we take our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s President Obama. Ambassador Jack Matlock, you say, you know, Russia is very threatened by the possibility Ukraine would join NATO. Most people in the United States, I don’t think, understand the politics of NATO. It’s not on people’s radar. Why is NATO such a threat? And what was the agreement that was originally worked out around NATO, with Ukraine and also in the Baltics, in Lithuania and Latvia and Estonia—Estonia, where President Obama is right now?
JACK MATLOCK: Well, they are members of NATO. They will be defended. Russia is not threatening them militarily. Of course we will defend them, because they are members of NATO. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. And why we react as if it is and has any claim on our cooperation in defending them from Russia, this is simply not the case. These are different cases. And, you know, by saying we have to increase our military presence in the Baltic states, this just reinforced the Russian perception that they must, and at all costs, keep Ukraine from that happening, or else they’ll have American bases in Ukraine, they’ll have American naval bases on the Black Sea. This is the fear. And it seems to me that it is not necessary to protect the Baltics, which are not being threatened by Russia, and it is apt to make the Russians even more demanding toward the Ukrainians when it comes to Ukraine. However, you know, we’re on that course, clearly. The Estonians and others feel that they could be threatened. But I think there is no question that as members of NATO, they would be defended by the United States, and Russia is not going to present a military challenge to them. But they are going to do whatever they consider necessary to make sure this doesn’t happen in Ukraine.
AMY GOODMAN: What about NATO officials saying they plan to approve a NATOrapid reaction force that would, what, be a 4,000-member force that could be rapidly deployed to eastern Europe in response to what they called Russia’s aggressive behavior?
JACK MATLOCK: Well, I’m not aware of what that aggressive behavior in regard to the Baltic states is. And again, I think that’s unnecessary, and it tends to make the Russians even more demanding when it comes to Ukraine.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about the original understanding of NATO and Russia. Go back a ways to understand what the deal was worked out between Russia andNATO allies.
JACK MATLOCK: Well, when the Berlin Wall came down, when eastern Europe began to try to free itself from the Communist rule, the first President Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, met with Gorbachev in Malta, and they made a very important statement. One was we were no longer enemies. The second was the Soviet Union would not intervene in eastern Europe to keep Communist rule there. And in response, the United States would not take advantage of that.
Now, this was a—you might say, a gentlemen’s agreement between Gorbachev and President Bush. It was one which was echoed by the other Western leaders—the British prime minister, the German chancellor, the French president. As we negotiated German unity, there the question was: Could a united Germany stay inNATO? At first, Gorbachev said, "No, if they unite, they have to leave NATO." And we said, "Look, let them unite. Let them stay in NATO. But we will not extend NATO to the territory of East Germany." Well, it turned out that legally you couldn’t do it that way, so in the final agreement it was that all of Germany would stay in NATO, but that the territory of East Germany would be special, in that there would be no foreign troops—that is, no non-German troops—and no nuclear weapons. Now, later—at that time, the Warsaw Pact was still in place. We weren’t talking about eastern Europe. But the statements made were very general. At one point, Secretary Baker told Gorbachev NATO jurisdiction would not move one inch to the east. Well, he had the GDR in mind, but that’s not what he said specifically.
So, yes, if I had been asked when I was ambassador of the United States in Moscow in 1991, "Is there an understanding that NATO won’t move to the east?" I would have said, "Yes, there is." However, it was not a legal commitment, and one could say that once the Soviet Union collapsed, any agreement then maybe didn’t hold, except that when you think about it, if there was no reason to expand NATO when the Soviet Union existed, there was even less reason when the Soviet Union collapsed and you were talking about Russia. And the reason many of us—myself, George Kennan, many of us—argued against NATO expansion in the '90s was precisely to avoid the sort of situation we have today. It was totally predictable. If we start expandingNATO, as we get closer to the Russian border, they are going to consider this a hostile act. And at some point, they will draw a line, and they will do anything within their power to keep it from going any further. That's what we’re seeing today.
-->

ISIS, OBAMA, SYRIA, PUTIN

$
0
0


THE ABSURD TIMES




            Shall we say "Here we go again?" after the 9/11 festivities, or memorials are over.  We can all lament the two of three thousand innocent people who died in the towers that day, but not the same number of innocent people who died in Gaza?  But now we have a "terrorist" threat in Iraq to take care of.

            It may be difficult to grasp, but what happened as a result of 9/11?  Many think that the entire thing was staged to make way for what followed, but it is just as likely that Bush and Cheney gave thanks that it happened.  At the time, Bush was seen reading a story about a goat, or duck, at the time.  When the fact was whispered in his ear, he waited for the longest time, perhaps because he wanted instead to find out what happened to the duck first, then get on an airplane.  Well, it's as good an explanation as anyone else has given, right?

            Because of the deaths in the twin towers, the crash into the Pentagon, and a crash in Pennsylvania, we quite logically invaded Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and occupied both countries for ten years and spent at least three trillion dollars, and sent many soldiers and civilians to their deaths.  To celebrate our success at reforming the world, Obama announced an additional war on the eve of 9/11. 

            There has been a lot of talk about boot on the ground.  We have no boots of the ground in Iraq.  We do have about 2,000 soldiers there, presumably they walk, and they wear boots, but they are not boots on the ground.  We are assured that boots on the ground are off the table.  You should always keep your boots off the table, don't you know.

            This time, we will get involved in Syria.  In Lebanon there was a civil war that went on for 15 years at least and it was only stopped by the intervention and mediation of Syria.  Now the civil war is in Syria.  There is no way that can turn out well with us involved.  It is less likely to result in good results than the NFL investigation into domestic violence cases.

            Actually, the US should be considered the Rodney Dangerfield of International Relations.  We unified Vietnam, and nobody said thank you.  We saved Afghanistan from the Taliban and now things are great there and women have the vote.  We liberated Iraq from the evil Saddam Hussein, and everything is peaceful.  We liberated Libya from Gaddafi, and they recently held a Militian Pool Party in the American Embassy.  Of course, we had left, but still, things are nice there now and they love us.  Last year they even celebrated 9/11 in Benghazi. 

            Now, of course, we have to liberate Syria from Assad.  So, we are going to arm what we called "doctors, lawyers, and radio journalists" and let them fight ISIL.  Yeah, they will be the boots.  Of course, Assad says this will violate international law and Putin agrees with him, but hey, Putin is just jealous and testing nuclear missiles, just in case NATO attacks from Poland.

            Anyway, here are a couple scholars to talk about the subject without all the idiocy of our major networks:


THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2014

Obama Vows to Destroy Islamic State, But Expanded Strikes in Syria & Iraq Point to "Endless War"

President Obama has authorized U.S. airstrikes for the first time in Syria and their expansion in Iraq against the militant group Islamic State. In a prime-time address, Obama vowed to hunt down Islamic State militants "wherever they are." Obama also announced he is sending 475 more U.S. military troops to Iraq, bringing the total to 1,600. He also called for congressional support to arm and train the Syrian opposition. We get analysis of Obama’s speech and this latest U.S. military foray into the Middle East with two guests: Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who has worked on issues involving Iraq since the 1980s and a former adviser to the Kurdistan Regional Government; and Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College and author of several books. Prashad’s latest article is "What President Obama Should Not Do About ISIS."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In a prime-time televised address last night, President Barack Obama announced he had authorized U.S. airstrikes for the first time in Syria and their expansion in Iraq against the Islamic State, which has seized broad stretches of Iraq and Syria. He vowed to hunt down militants from the Islamic State, quote, "wherever they are." Obama also announced he is sending 475 more U.S. military troops to Iraq, bringing the total to 1,600. He also called for congressional support to arm and train the Syrian opposition. Obama’s speech came on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11th attacks.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. Our objective is clear: We will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.
First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.
Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. In June, I deployed several hundred American servicemembers to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi security forces. Now that those teams have completed their work, and Iraq has formed a government, we will send an additional 475 servicemembers to Iraq. As I’ve said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission. We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. We’ll also support Iraq’s efforts to stand up National Guard units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from ISIL’s control.
Across the border in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight I call on Congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its own people, a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.
Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks. Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding, improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses, counter its warped ideology, and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East. And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.
Fourth, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this terrorist organization. This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities. We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands.
So this is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about President Obama’s speech, we’re joined by two guests. Peter Galbraith is former U.S. ambassador to Croatia. He’s worked on issues involving Iraq since the 1980s and is a former adviser to the Kurdistan Regional Government. He testified before a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday, currently a senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. His books include The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End. He joins us from Washington, D.C.
In Chicopee, Massachusetts, we’re joined by Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College, author of several books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter and, most recently, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South. Vijay Prashad is also a columnist for Frontline, where he’s been writing extensively about the Islamic State, his latest piece headlined "What President Obama Should Not Do About ISIS."
Ambassador Galbraith, let’s begin with you. Your response to President Obama’s speech last night?
PETER GALBRAITH: He outlined a strategy, and I think the strategy has a good prospect of accomplishing the goal of degrading ISIS. But I don’t think it’s capable of destroying ISIS. So let’s look at the parts of it. Airstrikes are effective when there are forces on the ground. And that really is the dilemma. Inside Iraq and Syria, there are three main forces that you could be supporting. There’s the Kurdistan Peshmerga, which suffered setbacks in August, but the units remained intact. With air support, they’ve been able to retake territory. But they are not going to go significantly beyond Kurdistan, and they’ve more or less retaken that territory. In the rest of Iraq, there’s the Iraqi army, which has largely disappeared since the beginning of the year. We spent billions building it up, and the end result was that the weapons we provided ended up in ISIS’s hands. I don’t see how you reconstitute that. The president’s talking about supporting local forces, and that, in theory, could be effective in the Sunni areas, but it’s going to be hard to get them set up, given that ISIS is there, and also that they would have to work with a government that Sunnis absolutely don’t trust. They don’t see a big difference between al-Abadi and his predecessor, Maliki. So, and in Syria, the problem with supporting the Syrian opposition is that we don’t really have a good feel for who all these people are, and they really have no prospect of defeating Assad, and we don’t really know if we can rely on them to fight ISIS, with the exception of, again, in the Kurdish north, the YPG, the Syrian Kurdish military. They have been fighting ISIS for well more than a year and at least have been holding their own.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Vijay Prashad, I wanted to ask you your reaction to the president’s speech and his new policy, and also this whole idea of asking Congress to finance the retraining once again, a creation of a new Iraqi army, after the last one that the United States spent billions on training has basically disintegrated.
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, I found the speech interesting, because the details on Iraq were definitely much more significant than the details on Syria. It was very light on Syria, for a good reason. At least in Iraq, as Ambassador Galbraith said, there is the possibility of providing close air support to the Kurdish Peshmerga from Iraqi Kurdistan. There’s a possibility of providing close air support through whatever remains of the Iraqi army. After all, they did take back the town of Amerli. But in Syria, there is no real easy group to which the United States can give close air support.
You know, the YPG—that is to say, the Kurdish force in the northeast of Syria—is backed by the Kurdish Workers’ Party from Turkey. The United States sees them as a terrorist organization. So I doubt very much that they will overtly have any coordination with the YPG and the PKK. They’ve already said they will not coordinate with the Syrian government. That’s the second force that could be mobilized to attack the ISIS fighters, particularly as ISIS is moving beyond Raqqa toward the homeland of the Kurdish government. The third major force is the other Islamist opposition. And it’s important to point out here that just a few days ago there was an enormous bomb attack on one of the most, you know, fierce fighting units among the other Islamists, and that was Ahrar al-Sham’s, which lost basically its entire leadership. The Free Syrian Army is basically a shell of what it had been. It’s more in name only.
So the idea that the United States is now going to outsource the training of a moderate Syrian opposition fighting force to Saudi Arabia has created, I think, a lot of worry in the region, a lot of concern, because Saudi Arabia’s own cutout in the Syrian war has been Jaysh al-Islam, which is not known for its moderation in any way. So the United States, if it wants to provide close air support to take on the Islamic State inside Syria, has no effective partner. So, in that sense, Mr. Obama’s speech yesterday was very confusing and was much more rhetoric than actual strategy.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, then come back to this debate. We’re joined by Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College, also by Ambassador Peter Galbraith. Stay with us.
[break]
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We continue to look at President Obama’s speech last night authorizing airstrikes in Syria and expanding attacks in Iraq against the Islamic State.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partners’ forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the speech, again, we’re joined by two guests, Ambassador Peter Galbraith, former adviser to the Kurdistan Regional Government, and Trinity College professor Vijay Prashad. Vijay Prashad, do you think the U.S. should be bombing at all?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, you know, there’s a big difference between bombing from the sky to, you know, destroy the advance of something like the Islamic State, and to give close air support. And I think that this is the confusion, is what exactly is the United States prepared to do? Is it prepared to wipe out the city of Raqqa? Or does it want to give close air support to people on the ground who are fighting directly and engaging with the group, the Islamic State? In Syria, as far as I can see in, unless there is a serious political discussion between all the parties, there is no way that you can reconstitute a significant enough fighting force that will be able to take on the Islamic State. It seems that the United States wants to have it both ways: on the one side, take on the Islamic State, and on the other side, continue with promoting chaos inside Syria. You cannot promote chaos and take on the Islamic State. You have to pick one particular strategy, and Mr. Obama actually has chosen both. Bombing is not a panacea, unless there’s a real strategy of how you’re going to defeat the Islamic State on the ground.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Ambassador Galbraith, what about this issue of the president saying that he believes he has the authorization to be able to carry out these actions and says he would welcome a vote by Congress but doesn’t feel he needs it? I’d like to ask you about that specifically in relationship to Syria itself.
PETER GALBRAITH: I spent 14 years working for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, from '79 to ’93, and repeatedly the issue of the War Powers Act came up. It was enacted to prevent another Vietnam, but the kind of conflicts that we've had since then have been much smaller scale. The Congress is not serious about having a role in making decisions about these kinds of interventions. And presidents, when they really want to do it, are not interested in getting congressional support. So I think this is really an academic debate that is not of much interest to the American people, not to the foreign policy community. Frankly, it’s a sideshow.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you agree with that, Professor Prashad?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, you know, I don’t have the kind of experience in Washington, D.C., but I do think that a lot of what happens in American foreign policy making, or has happened in the last few years, is much more for domestic consumption than it is actually about the problems around the world. If you just take the examples that Mr. Obama said yesterday of successes, you know, he mentioned Yemen and Somalia. Well, that’s news to the people of Somalia and Yemen that the American strategy has been a success. Indeed, Yemen, principally because it’s out of the American news, appears to be a quiet place, but it’s definitely not a quiet place for the people of Yemen. In fact, the problems in Yemen have since compounded. And even in Somalia, where the leader of al-Shabab was assassinated recently, there was a bomb blast. And, you know, I don’t know, they counted about 20 people dead. So it’s not clear that—when foreign policy decision making is made in the public domain in the United States, it’s not clear that that’s directly in the interests of people overseas or whether it’s for domestic consumption. And it seems to me this is much more for domestic consumption than it is for the actual pragmatic problems for people in that region.
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Prashad [sic], the issue of Saudi Arabia, I believe—rather, Ambassador Galbraith, Saudi Arabia, I think Secretary of State Kerry is there today. Saudi Arabia as a funder of the Islamic State and the U.S. role as an ally with Saudi Arabia, do you think it is putting the proper pressure it should, whether we’re talking about Saudi Arabia, whether we’re talking about Qatar, whether we’re talking about Jordan?
PETER GALBRAITH: Well, the first point is that these countries don’t see the situation as we do. As far as they’re concerned, the top threat is Iran, and then probably the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic State would be in third place. So, to the extent that the Islamic State is useful in fighting the Iranian-backed regime in Iraq and in Syria, they are much more ambivalent. And that raises a question about a strategy of having the Saudis involved in training the so-called moderate Islamic opposition. And there’s always a question about whether the Saudis are moderate in this matter.
But the other problem in Syria, which I think people don’t focus on, is some 35 percent of the Syrian population is not Sunni Arab. That is to say, they are Alawites, Christian, Druze, other religious minorities and Kurds. And the striking thing about this opposition is that it doesn’t include significant support from any of those communities. The Alawites fear, with very good reason, that if the opposition were to prevail, even the moderates, that they would face genocide. So even if they don’t like Assad, he’s an Alawite, and at least he’s there and capable of preventing genocide.
Now, the one thing that I think was—one of the things that I think was good in the president’s speech, which hasn’t been remarked on, is he made a distinction between trying to eliminate ISIS and having a political settlement in Syria. And I think there’s no prospect that the Syrian war can be resolved militarily. I think it’s going to be very difficult to do it politically. But at least there’s a recognition in his speech that as far as the Assad regime goes, we’re not looking at a military defeat, we’re looking at a political settlement. And I think that’s right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Vijay Prashad, what would you see as the solution to the continuing crisis in Iraq and Syria? And how does the United States counter this view in the Arab and Muslim world that it’s going from one country to another seeking to impose its solutions on the local domestic conflicts?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, Juan, I’ll put it in two different ways. I was actually struck by President Obama’s use of words like "Shia" and "Sunni," very loosely used, and I don’t think this is helpful. I think the most important direction is to create a rapprochement, for the United States to work towards creating a de-escalation and rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Unless the United States is able to bring these two countries or at least help bring these two countries to the table, there is going to be continued chaos in the region. And in fact, there has been an opportunity to bring them together, and that was the ill-starred Syria contact group which was formed by Egypt in 2012, which had the most important countries in the region sit around the table, and that was Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Egypt. I think something like that needs to be reconstituted. I utterly agree with Ambassador Galbraith that from the standpoint of Riyadh, they still see Iran as the principal threat. And if this continues to happen, well, God help the Middle East, because the most important thing is to de-escalate the tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is what is principally going to be an impediment to any—let’s not say "peace," but any de-escalation of the immense violence that has inflicted Syria and Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Professor Prashad, the same question to you about the role of Saudi Arabia in all of this?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, I mean, it’s a curious business. Again, like Ambassador Galbraith, I agree. It’s a serious question whether Saudi Arabia has moderate goals in the region. I mean, the fact is that their cutout in Syria, which is Jaysh al-Islam, was not at all considered a moderate group. I mean, people have worried about the people that Saudi officially has been financing. Forget the private financing from Saudi, Qatari and Kuwaiti sheikhs; the official organization itself is not moderate. So how does that give people confidence that the new force that will be constituted, you know, after the Islamic Front, the Southern Front, and this will be the third attempt—how are we confident that this is going to be moderate? I think, you know, this is really hoping against hope for some kind of development which there is no evidence to indicate can happen—in other words, the making of a moderate military force through the good auspices of Saudi Arabia.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Ambassador Galbraith, I’d like to ask you about Iraq specifically. You’ve argued in some of your writings that the national project of Iraq is essentially a failed project and that, especially in terms of the Kurds, greater independence would probably be a better route. How do you see what is going to be happening in Iraq, even assuming the United States is able to prevail against the Islamic State with the support of the local Iraqi and Syrian militias or fighters?
PETER GALBRAITH: Well, Iraq had broke apart a long time ago. Kurdistan in the north is, in all regards, an independent state with its own parliament, army. We’re now supplying it directly. We speak of it, you know, as if it were also an independent state. And there’s no way that it’s going to go back to be just a region of Iraq. The president of Kurdistan said he’s going to have a referendum on independence. I think that’s probably been put off for a while. But the operative thing is "put off for a while."
And with regard to Sunnis and Shiites, the problem is that the Sunnis ran Iraq for its first 90 years and their policy was to keep the Kurds in and the Shiites down. Since 2003, the Shiites, who are the majority, have been in charge. It has been a—the last three prime ministers have come Dawa, a Shiite religious party. They seek to define Iraq as a Shiite state with close ties with Iran. That’s unacceptable to the Sunnis. And there’s no way that Sunnis are going to turn against ISIS and work with a government that they see doesn’t really include them, and indeed is hostile to them.
And the president made a lot in his speech of this national unity government. That was the basis for the strategy. But there isn’t one. The Kurds, of the 30 Cabinet ministries, they got three. They haven’t actually even named their people. By their strength in Parliament, they should have had twice as many. They didn’t want to join the government. They did so—and they’ve said this very clearly—only because of very intense U.S. pressure, and because of the deadline of President Obama’s speech. The Sunnis, the members of the government, if any of them live in the Sunni areas of Iraq, they can’t go home. So they aren’t really representing the people who are there. And also, none of those tensions have been solved. Abadi is really—although he speaks better, maybe isn’t as dour and paranoid as his predecessor, he comes from exactly the same party, exactly the same approach, that of a centralized state that is not going to be accommodating to either the Kurds or the Sunnis. So, this national government is not real, and that’s a fundamental problem with the strategy.
AMY GOODMAN: Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday the rapid rise of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria can be attributed to the failure of President Obama to assert American influence in the region.
DICK CHENEY: ISIS does not recognize a border between Syria and Iraq, so neither should we. We should immediately hit them in their sanctuaries, staging areas, command centers and lines of communication, wherever we find them. We should provide significantly increased numbers of military trainers, special operations forces and intelligence architecture and air power to aid the Iraqi military and the Kurdish Peshmerga in their counteroffensive againstISIS. We work to defeat ISIS and prevent the establishment of a terrorist safe haven in the heart of the Middle East. We must move globally to get back on offense in the war on terror.
AMY GOODMAN: Aside from criticizing the Obama administration, is what President Obama is doing that different from what Dick Cheney wants, Vijay Prashad?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, not really, except, of course, firstly, it’s a hubris matter to take Dick Cheney seriously, who after all was one of the architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which, you know, basically broke the state up completely and provided the opportunity for Iraqi society, which had never really had any kind of al-Qaeda group, to incubate al-Qaeda. So, it’s an odd thing for him to now give advice. But on the other hand, what he’s saying is similar to what Mr. Obama is saying. He’s being more specific. I don’t know what intelligence he is reading, but it’s amazing to hear somebody talk about the Islamic State having command and control centers, supply routes. I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about. This is not a group that’s functioning in the way that he imagines. This is a very different kind of insurgency, much more fragmented. And I’m not sure that it’s going to be so easy to find targets from up on high without people on the ground.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Ambassador Galbraith, the subtitle of your book isWar Without End. Are we now looking at a war without end?
PETER GALBRAITH: Yes. I think President Obama’s strategy may be able to degrade the Islamic State, but there isn’t the prospect of putting together a unified Iraqi government that is going to win over the Sunnis and make them partners in an effort to eradicate ISIS in the Sunni areas of the country. So, this is likely to continue for many years. And in Syria, you know, I thought Syria, in its demography, has a lot of similarities to Lebanon. And that civil war went on for 15 years, and it ended when Syria intervened. But there isn’t a Syria to intervene in Syria, so this war also could go on for decades. It’s a real tragedy for the peoples of that part of the world, and it’s going to be a challenge for U.S. and world foreign policy. We’ve had a lot of talk about pivoting from Europe to Asia, but inevitably we’re going to be focused on this part of the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Peter Galbraith, I want to thank you for being with us, former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, worked on issues involving Iraq since the '80s, former adviser to the Kurdistan Regional Government, now with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, among his books, Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America's Enemies and The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End. And thank you to Professor Vijay Prashad of Trinity College, author of a number of books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter and, most recently, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, what would Dr. King do? Stay with us.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.



-->

Mideast to US, INC: Go Away

$
0
0

           

 THE ABSURD TIMES





Mideast to US, Inc.: Go Away!






Illustration: Latuff accurately depicts our latest idea for "solving" problems in the Mideast.

            Almost every issue involving the Mideast has already been fully discussed here, and it is clear that no activity on the part of the West has improved any situation there and that every intervention has merely made things worse.  ISIS, or ISIL, or IS, or the Caliphate, is just the last of a series of crises caused by some sort of prior intervention.  It seems appropriate to review the history or support this contention before abandoning the entire discussion forever as moronic and absurd, too absurd for this publication.  The real solution to the ISIS threat is to do nothing, but, in the words of Bin Laden, "Plant a Terrorist flag anywhere in the East and the west will send troops and generals, spending their reserves and depleting the energy and spirit of the American people.  It will also help further recruitment."

            The true key to U.S. foreign policy, anywhere, is money.  We need only ask ourselves who benefits from any of our wars?  Manufacturers of military hardware and now software, contractors, and other corporate interests.  No one is safer as a result of our actions and no people have gotten any more liberty, fraternity, equality, or freedom (or any other sort of ideological claptrap) as a result.  No, to fully understand the key to U.S. foreign policy one need only follow the famous advice of "deep throat" during the Watergate investigation: "Follow the money."  Unfortunately, that is difficult to do, exactly as all sorts of accounting becomes involved, but estimates of over three billion dollars for the second Iraq invasion seem common.  According to a recent Harvard study, all of it totals at least 6 Trillion.  Who really know?  The names of the companies, and even the contractors (such as "Blackwater" and all its aliases) are not even easy to identify.  However, we can trace the history a bit.

            Importantly, a high-ranking Gulf State official just said "It is another demand for money, money.  They did that before and are doing it now.  We are not afraid of ISIS.  If America is afraid of ISIS, they can pay for it themselves."   It sounds very much like the protection industry promoted by organized crime to us.  [Ed.: I grew up in Chicago, I should know.]

            We will only go as far back as 1948, although Orientalism  by Edward Said, written 30 or more years after that summarizes very well what has happened for a long time and in more detail than will be attempted here.

            In 1948, because Hitler was a bad guy and because enormous pressure was applied, the State of Israel was created.  Since then, it has unilaterally expanded itself to occupy nearly all the territory and resources in the area, killing many innocent original inhabitants of the land and stealing their property.  Many of them still have deeds which, of course, will never be recognized.  Millions of innocents have been killed and imprisoned over the years in several wars and the United States is usually held accountable.  It also has nuclear weapons, courtesy of the United States.

            In 1953, we did not like the elected leader of Iran, Mossadegh.  He had, gasp, socialist leanings and the Dulles brothers, especially, and our CIA installed instead the Shah.  His treatment of his own people over the years reached the point where even they could not stand him, they revolted, and wound up with the current Ayatollah system they have now and have had since 1979 or thereabouts.  This is the result of our efforts to intervene in the Mideast.  For a while, oil was cheaper for large oil companies and Israel.

            Well, where next?  All of the west seemed happy with the Royal family running Iraq, except the people of Iraq.  A revolution ensued and finally things settled down with Saddam Hussein running things.  We supported him, supplied him with weapons, and eventually had him at war with Iran (which has never attacked another country in modern history).  Finally, the war ended, both sides claimed victory, and we grew tired of the fact that had was helping resistance against Israel.  We therefore (of course, we deny it, and never believed anything until it is officially denied) said he could invade Kuwait as it was a part of the original Iraq.  This started the first Gulf war.

            There was an interval of eight years of Bill Clinton where we simply bombed Iraq and intervened, instead, in the Baltic. 

            Then another Bush entered.  Some time ago, we did not like the Soviet Union helping Afghanistan, so we supported Bin Laden and some others to throw them out.  Al-Quade came out of this and started bombing here and there.  Afghanistan was now ruled by the Taliban, a group we officially do not like.  Then something happened with the towers in NY.  No matter what the cause, we attacked Afghanistan where Bin Laden was, but moved as soon as possible to attack and invade Iraq.  See, Saddam was providing free education, at home and abroad, housing at home and abroad, and aid to Palestinians who lost their family leaders.  In other words, he was providing a humanistic example for other Arab countries.  Since we were dependent on them for oil and since they did not like this, we attacked him.  Eventually, we got the current leadership and ISIS.  However, in the meantime, large corporations profited enormously, mainly from U.S. Taxpayers, but also those other, rich, oil country families and leaders who wished to maintain their standard of living.

            Another irritant was Quaddafi, leader of Libya, another, gasp, socialist Muslim.  He had to go in the name of liberty for the innocent people there.  Oil is much cheaper and the people, well, they have been at war with one another ever since.  Obama takes credit for both killing Bin Laden (although no proof exists and no dialysis machine was found in the quarters they invaded).  No body was available as he was "buried at sea."  In Benghazi, which the Republicans are investigating, our Ambassador was killed in the same manner as Quaddafi.  We will spare you the ugly details. 

            We could go on, but why bother?  Nothing will change unless there is enough money in it.  Below is a nice interview about the money in itself and how it is used: 

           

           
           
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2014

Think Tanks as Lobbyists: Exposé Shows U.S. Groups Receive Millions to Push Foreign Nations’ Agendas

A New York Times exposé reveals more than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials. Some scholars funded by the think tanks say they faced pressure to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing their work. The groups named in the report include the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council, and most of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, including the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway. Few of them have registered with the Justice Department as "foreign agents" that aim to shape policy, as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We are joined by Brooke Williams, a contributing reporter at The New York Times who co-wrote the new article, "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks."
Image Credit: flickr.com/dora_bakoyannis

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to a New York Times exposé which finds some of the most influential think tanks in the United States are awash in funds from foreign governments. According to the investigation published over the weekend, quote, "More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities."
The story is headlined "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks." It reveals most of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, including the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway. Some scholars funded by the think tanks say they faced pressure to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing the research. Among the organizations named in the report are the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Atlantic Council.
For more, we’re joined by one of the article’s authors, Brooke Williams, contributing reporter at The New York Times who co-wrote the piece. She’s also an investigative journalism fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.
Brooke Williams, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about what you found.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Thank you for having me. Well, we found tens of millions of dollars, as much as $92 million—and that’s a bare minimum—from foreign governments and foreign-controlled entities to think tanks, mostly in Washington, D.C. We also found a window into—to examine how the think tanks are interacting with the governments. And this is something that we’ve done for the first time. Think tanks have always—some of them have always published lists of donors. However, we could never tell what the foreign governments were paying for exactly, and usually not how much money they provided. We used public records from one of the governments and provided a window into how the think tanks were interacting. And what we found were some agreements in which the foreign government, Norway, in particular, was explicitly asking a think tank to approach—
AMY GOODMAN: The think tank being?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: The Center for Global Development—and to approach U.S. policymakers with a specific objective that was in the government’s interest. And we found that donors—
AMY GOODMAN: What were they asking for?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: They were asking for—to double spending in a foreign aid program. And a portion—a progress report that they sent to the Norwegian government said, "Target [group]: U.S. policy makers," and then listed the policymakers that they would be targeting.
AMY GOODMAN: And the foreign aid money would go to where?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: The foreign aid money, it was doubling U.S. spending money to—it’s a deforestation effort, so it’s a climate change agenda.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about other examples that you found.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: We found letters, for instance, from think tanks such as the Atlantic Council, and they’re on the document viewer that’s on—readers can see on the website, in which—
AMY GOODMAN: You built the database?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: I built the database. And so, yes. And this is the first of its kind, in which we can really track how much money. I mean, it’s coming from all over the world, but, as you mentioned, certain areas are more heavily involved. But we found letters, for instance, from the Atlantic Council to a Norwegian energy minister, inviting them to attend an event and saying to the state-owned oil company, "If you attend, you know, this will really benefit your interests." We found in one case a Brookings scholar saying that he would help to bring along a State Department official to a meeting, and Norway is a major donor to Brookings.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me get—bring in Brookings’ response, who we called. This is a message published by Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution, in response to the New York Times article on foreign powers buying influence at think tanks. Talbott writes, quote, "By disregarding important facts and taking information out of context, the reporters drew inaccurate conclusions that misrepresent the work of Brookings and ignore the institutional safeguards we have in place to ensure complete independence for our scholars’ research and policy recommendations." Your response to that, Brooke Williams?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Brookings does have institutional safeguards, and we examined them, and we included them in the article. I think it’s important to remember, however, that even with explicit rules, there can be implicit understandings. And as you can see in the article, we spoke with scholars who said donations from foreign governments led to implicit agreements, and that they would refrain from criticizing the donor governments. So even with explicit agreements, there can be implicit agreements and pressure to self-censor.
AMY GOODMAN: You talked about the Atlantic Council, and you feature a photograph, in addition to in the text, of Michele Dunne, who resigned as head of the Atlantic Council’s center for the Middle East after calling for a suspension a military aid to Egypt in 2013. Explain what happened and what this has to do with your central point in this article.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Well, it comes back to the idea that scholars rely on funding from donors. And, you know, Brookings, for instance, said their senior scholars, they have an understanding and agreement that senior scholars, even if a donor pulls funding, will not lose their jobs because of that. Right? And so, this goes back to safeguards in place at institutions. And in that case, the Atlantic Council declined to comment much on what happened there, but I think it comes back to the idea of feeling pressure to self-censor and what might happen if a scholar were to criticize a donor government.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the laws in the United States, not just the rules of these different organizations, around the issue of registering as a lobbyist.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Right, yeah. So the law pertaining to foreign government interests is much more strict than the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which, you know, we know, companies register to lobby. So, it requires foreign government interests who are attempting to influence public opinion or policy to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And those filings are extremely detailed. They contain the dates and contacts of reporters, think tank officials, you name it. They listed the dates of contact, the purpose, whether it was by phone or in-person meeting. And it goes back to World War II, in an effort for the U.S. government to distinguish between Nazi Germany propaganda and research. And so, this—
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think these think tanks should have to register as foreign agents?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Well, what I can say is that we spoke with attorneys who specialize in this area and examined, several times, the documents that we obtained, the agreements between the think tanks and the foreign governments. And the language in the documents, in these agreements, those attorneys felt, was strong enough—they leaned back in their chairs and said, "Wow! You know, this is explicit." Some of the documents explicitly showed how the government was asking the think tank to influence public policy and, in some cases, opinion.
AMY GOODMAN: You have a piece under the sub-headline "Parallels With Lobbying.""The line between scholarly research and lobbying can sometimes be hard to discern.
“Last year, Japan began an effort to persuade American officials to accelerate negotiations over a free-trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of Japan’s top priorities. The country already had lobbyists on retainer, from the Washington firm of Akin Gump, but decided to embark on a broader campaign.
"Akin Gump lobbyists approached several influential members of Congress and their staffs ... [I]n October 2013, the lawmakers established just such a group, the Friends of the Trans-Pacific Partnership," in October of 2013. Talk about what happened from there.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: So, they established this group, and there’s an organization called the Japan External Trade Organization. And we found, in filings with the Department of Justice, that they had been paying the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as well as other think tanks, for research and consulting. And then we also documented that the product of these seminars and groups that they held was to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now, a member, a scholar there, ended up testifying before Congress, promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And what this comes down to is: Do lawmakers know? When someone from a research organization approaches them with a policy recommendation, do they know that a foreign government has funded that organization or, in some cases, even the policy paper itself?
AMY GOODMAN: And explain the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ relationship with this.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Well, the Center for Strategic and International Studies has a seminar. It’s called the JETRO-CSIS seminar. And annually, they bring together lawmakers, specifically lawmakers who are in charge of U.S. trade policy, and Japan officials who are in charge of Japan’s trade policy, together, funded by the Japanese government and this Japan trade organization, to discuss U.S. policies in trade. And those policies are very important to Japan. So, attorneys who looked at these documents, you know, that area was more grey than perhaps the Center for Global Development and Brookings, but it still produced questions. You know, was this lobbying? Bringing together—it was providing access, at the very least.
AMY GOODMAN: Did you find violations of U.S. law?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: The attorneys we spoke with thought that the documents they reviewed, that I requested and obtained from Norway, the attorneys we interviewed believed that they—that two of the think tanks have.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you name those two think tanks?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Brookings and the Center for Global Development.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, where would that lead?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Well, it’s hard to say. The Department of Justice is in charge of the Foreign Agent Registration Act and in charge of enforcing it. And we’ll have to see what happens from here.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’ll leave it at that. I want to thank you very much for being with us.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Brooke Williams is one of the journalists who wrote the New York Times piece, "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks." She is also an investigative journalism fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and built the database that you can see. We’ll link to the New York Timespiece that links to that database.
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
           




Mideast to US, Inc.: Go Away!

 



Illustration: Latuff accurately depicts our latest idea for "solving" problems in the Mideast.

            Almost every issue involving the Mideast has already been fully discussed here, and it is clear that no activity on the part of the West has improved any situation there and that every intervention has merely made things worse.  ISIS, or ISIL, or IS, or the Caliphate, is just the last of a series of crises caused by some sort of prior intervention.  It seems appropriate to review the history or support this contention before abandoning the entire discussion forever as moronic and absurd, too absurd for this publication.  The real solution to the ISIS threat is to do nothing, but, in the words of Bin Laden, "Plant a Terrorist flag anywhere in the East and the west will send troops and generals, spending their reserves and depleting the energy and spirit of the American people.  It will also help further recruitment."

            The true key to U.S. foreign policy, anywhere, is money.  We need only ask ourselves who benefits from any of our wars?  Manufacturers of military hardware and now software, contractors, and other corporate interests.  No one is safer as a result of our actions and no people have gotten any more liberty, fraternity, equality, or freedom (or any other sort of ideological claptrap) as a result.  No, to fully understand the key to U.S. foreign policy one need only follow the famous advice of "deep throat" during the Watergate investigation: "Follow the money."  Unfortunately, that is difficult to do, exactly as all sorts of accounting becomes involved, but estimates of over three billion dollars for the second Iraq invasion seem common.  According to a recent Harvard study, all of it totals at least 6 Billion.  Who really know?  The names of the companies, and even the contractors (such as "Blackwater" and all its aliases) are not even easy to identify.  However, we can trace the history a bit.

            Importantly, a high-ranking Gulf State official just said "It is another demand for money, money.  They did that before and are doing it now.  We are not afraid of ISIS.  If America is afraid of ISIS, they can pay for it themselves."   It sounds very much like the protection industry promoted by organized crime to us.  [Ed.: I grew up in Chicago, I should know.]

            We will only go as far back as 1948, although Orientalism  by Edward Said, written 30 or more years after that summarizes very well what has happened for a long time and in more detail than will be attempted here.

            In 1948, because Hitler was a bad guy and because enormous pressure was applied, the State of Israel was created.  Since then, it has unilaterally expanded itself to occupy nearly all the territory and resources in the area, killing many innocent original inhabitants of the land and stealing their property.  Many of them still have deeds which, of course, will never be recognized.  Millions of innocents have been killed and imprisoned over the years in several wars and the United States is usually held accountable.  It also has nuclear weapons, courtesy of the United States.

            In 1953, we did not like the elected leader of Iran, Mossadegh.  He had, gasp, socialist leanings and the Dulles brothers, especially, and our CIA installed instead the Shah.  His treatment of his own people over the years reached the point where even they could not stand him, they revolted, and wound up with the current Ayatollah system they have now and have had since 1979 or thereabouts.  This is the result of our efforts to intervene in the Mideast.  For a while, oil was cheaper for large oil companies and Israel.

            Well, where next?  All of the west seemed happy with the Royal family running Iraq, except the people of Iraq.  A revolution ensued and finally things settled down with Saddam Hussein running things.  We supported him, supplied him with weapons, and eventually had him at war with Iran (which has never attacked another country in modern history).  Finally, the war ended, both sides claimed victory, and we grew tired of the fact that had was helping resistance against Israel.  We therefore (of course, we deny it, and never believed anything until it is officially denied) said he could invade Kuwait as it was a part of the original Iraq.  This started the first Gulf war.

            There was an interval of eight years of Bill Clinton where we simply bombed Iraq and intervened, instead, in the Baltic. 

            Then another Bush entered.  Some time ago, we did not like the Soviet Union helping Afghanistan, so we supported Bin Laden and some others to throw them out.  Al-Quade came out of this and started bombing here and there.  Afghanistan was now ruled by the Taliban, a group we officially do not like.  Then something happened with the towers in NY.  No matter what the cause, we attacked Afghanistan where Bin Laden was, but moved as soon as possible to attack and invade Iraq.  See, Saddam was providing free education, at home and abroad, housing at home and abroad, and aid to Palestinians who lost their family leaders.  In other words, he was providing a humanistic example for other Arab countries.  Since we were dependent on them for oil and since they did not like this, we attacked him.  Eventually, we got the current leadership and ISIS.  However, in the meantime, large corporations profited enormously, mainly from U.S. Taxpayers, but also those other, rich, oil country families and leaders who wished to maintain their standard of living.

            Another irritant was Quaddafi, leader of Libya, another, gasp, socialist Muslim.  He had to go in the name of liberty for the innocent people there.  Oil is much cheaper and the people, well, they have been at war with one another ever since.  Obama takes credit for both killing Bin Laden (although no proof exists and no dialysis machine was found in the quarters they invaded).  No body was available as he was "buried at sea."  In Benghazi, which the Republicans are investigating, our Ambassador was killed in the same manner as Quaddafi.  We will spare you the ugly details. 

            We could go on, but why bother?  Nothing will change unless there is enough money in it.  Below is a nice interview about the money in itself and how it is used: 

           

           
           
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2014

Think Tanks as Lobbyists: Exposé Shows U.S. Groups Receive Millions to Push Foreign Nations’ Agendas

A New York Times exposé reveals more than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials. Some scholars funded by the think tanks say they faced pressure to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing their work. The groups named in the report include the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council, and most of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, including the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway. Few of them have registered with the Justice Department as "foreign agents" that aim to shape policy, as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We are joined by Brooke Williams, a contributing reporter at The New York Times who co-wrote the new article, "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks."
Image Credit: flickr.com/dora_bakoyannis

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to a New York Times exposé which finds some of the most influential think tanks in the United States are awash in funds from foreign governments. According to the investigation published over the weekend, quote, "More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities."
The story is headlined "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks." It reveals most of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, including the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway. Some scholars funded by the think tanks say they faced pressure to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing the research. Among the organizations named in the report are the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Atlantic Council.
For more, we’re joined by one of the article’s authors, Brooke Williams, contributing reporter at The New York Times who co-wrote the piece. She’s also an investigative journalism fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.
Brooke Williams, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about what you found.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Thank you for having me. Well, we found tens of millions of dollars, as much as $92 million—and that’s a bare minimum—from foreign governments and foreign-controlled entities to think tanks, mostly in Washington, D.C. We also found a window into—to examine how the think tanks are interacting with the governments. And this is something that we’ve done for the first time. Think tanks have always—some of them have always published lists of donors. However, we could never tell what the foreign governments were paying for exactly, and usually not how much money they provided. We used public records from one of the governments and provided a window into how the think tanks were interacting. And what we found were some agreements in which the foreign government, Norway, in particular, was explicitly asking a think tank to approach—
AMY GOODMAN: The think tank being?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: The Center for Global Development—and to approach U.S. policymakers with a specific objective that was in the government’s interest. And we found that donors—
AMY GOODMAN: What were they asking for?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: They were asking for—to double spending in a foreign aid program. And a portion—a progress report that they sent to the Norwegian government said, "Target [group]: U.S. policy makers," and then listed the policymakers that they would be targeting.
AMY GOODMAN: And the foreign aid money would go to where?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: The foreign aid money, it was doubling U.S. spending money to—it’s a deforestation effort, so it’s a climate change agenda.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about other examples that you found.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: We found letters, for instance, from think tanks such as the Atlantic Council, and they’re on the document viewer that’s on—readers can see on the website, in which—
AMY GOODMAN: You built the database?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: I built the database. And so, yes. And this is the first of its kind, in which we can really track how much money. I mean, it’s coming from all over the world, but, as you mentioned, certain areas are more heavily involved. But we found letters, for instance, from the Atlantic Council to a Norwegian energy minister, inviting them to attend an event and saying to the state-owned oil company, "If you attend, you know, this will really benefit your interests." We found in one case a Brookings scholar saying that he would help to bring along a State Department official to a meeting, and Norway is a major donor to Brookings.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me get—bring in Brookings’ response, who we called. This is a message published by Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution, in response to the New York Times article on foreign powers buying influence at think tanks. Talbott writes, quote, "By disregarding important facts and taking information out of context, the reporters drew inaccurate conclusions that misrepresent the work of Brookings and ignore the institutional safeguards we have in place to ensure complete independence for our scholars’ research and policy recommendations." Your response to that, Brooke Williams?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Brookings does have institutional safeguards, and we examined them, and we included them in the article. I think it’s important to remember, however, that even with explicit rules, there can be implicit understandings. And as you can see in the article, we spoke with scholars who said donations from foreign governments led to implicit agreements, and that they would refrain from criticizing the donor governments. So even with explicit agreements, there can be implicit agreements and pressure to self-censor.
AMY GOODMAN: You talked about the Atlantic Council, and you feature a photograph, in addition to in the text, of Michele Dunne, who resigned as head of the Atlantic Council’s center for the Middle East after calling for a suspension a military aid to Egypt in 2013. Explain what happened and what this has to do with your central point in this article.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Well, it comes back to the idea that scholars rely on funding from donors. And, you know, Brookings, for instance, said their senior scholars, they have an understanding and agreement that senior scholars, even if a donor pulls funding, will not lose their jobs because of that. Right? And so, this goes back to safeguards in place at institutions. And in that case, the Atlantic Council declined to comment much on what happened there, but I think it comes back to the idea of feeling pressure to self-censor and what might happen if a scholar were to criticize a donor government.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the laws in the United States, not just the rules of these different organizations, around the issue of registering as a lobbyist.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Right, yeah. So the law pertaining to foreign government interests is much more strict than the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which, you know, we know, companies register to lobby. So, it requires foreign government interests who are attempting to influence public opinion or policy to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And those filings are extremely detailed. They contain the dates and contacts of reporters, think tank officials, you name it. They listed the dates of contact, the purpose, whether it was by phone or in-person meeting. And it goes back to World War II, in an effort for the U.S. government to distinguish between Nazi Germany propaganda and research. And so, this—
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think these think tanks should have to register as foreign agents?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Well, what I can say is that we spoke with attorneys who specialize in this area and examined, several times, the documents that we obtained, the agreements between the think tanks and the foreign governments. And the language in the documents, in these agreements, those attorneys felt, was strong enough—they leaned back in their chairs and said, "Wow! You know, this is explicit." Some of the documents explicitly showed how the government was asking the think tank to influence public policy and, in some cases, opinion.
AMY GOODMAN: You have a piece under the sub-headline "Parallels With Lobbying.""The line between scholarly research and lobbying can sometimes be hard to discern.
“Last year, Japan began an effort to persuade American officials to accelerate negotiations over a free-trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of Japan’s top priorities. The country already had lobbyists on retainer, from the Washington firm of Akin Gump, but decided to embark on a broader campaign.
"Akin Gump lobbyists approached several influential members of Congress and their staffs ... [I]n October 2013, the lawmakers established just such a group, the Friends of the Trans-Pacific Partnership," in October of 2013. Talk about what happened from there.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: So, they established this group, and there’s an organization called the Japan External Trade Organization. And we found, in filings with the Department of Justice, that they had been paying the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as well as other think tanks, for research and consulting. And then we also documented that the product of these seminars and groups that they held was to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now, a member, a scholar there, ended up testifying before Congress, promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And what this comes down to is: Do lawmakers know? When someone from a research organization approaches them with a policy recommendation, do they know that a foreign government has funded that organization or, in some cases, even the policy paper itself?
AMY GOODMAN: And explain the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ relationship with this.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Well, the Center for Strategic and International Studies has a seminar. It’s called the JETRO-CSIS seminar. And annually, they bring together lawmakers, specifically lawmakers who are in charge of U.S. trade policy, and Japan officials who are in charge of Japan’s trade policy, together, funded by the Japanese government and this Japan trade organization, to discuss U.S. policies in trade. And those policies are very important to Japan. So, attorneys who looked at these documents, you know, that area was more grey than perhaps the Center for Global Development and Brookings, but it still produced questions. You know, was this lobbying? Bringing together—it was providing access, at the very least.
AMY GOODMAN: Did you find violations of U.S. law?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: The attorneys we spoke with thought that the documents they reviewed, that I requested and obtained from Norway, the attorneys we interviewed believed that they—that two of the think tanks have.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you name those two think tanks?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Brookings and the Center for Global Development.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, where would that lead?
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Well, it’s hard to say. The Department of Justice is in charge of the Foreign Agent Registration Act and in charge of enforcing it. And we’ll have to see what happens from here.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’ll leave it at that. I want to thank you very much for being with us.
BROOKE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Brooke Williams is one of the journalists who wrote the New York Times piece, "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks." She is also an investigative journalism fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and built the database that you can see. We’ll link to the New York Timespiece that links to that database.
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
           

-->

Correction or addition

$
0
0
Every so often, we get a helpful bit of feedback:

Er, yes, Trillion.  I'll correct that and include you comment as well.  Thanks!


Ahem, well, if I may interject, France gave Israel nukes, in conjunction with the US  http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html, and did you mean TRILLION instead of billion?

Khorazan -- We Knew Dat

$
0
0
THE ABSURD TIMES







Illustration: Latuff rendering of Obama at the UN
Khorazan



            We here at the Times were amused to see so many people in the media puzzled by the Khorazan group.  We knew all about it, of course, the whole time and just didn't want to say anything about it.



            We are given to understand that it is an Al-Quaeda group led my a ruthless 33 year old who was with Bin-Laden on the day after the towers were hit, taking joy along with him.  He was one of the master-minds.  And if you do the arithmetic, that means he was 19 when he helped plan the operation.  What were YOU doing when your were 19, hmm?



            Obama spoke at the United nations about the disillusioned individuals who join these groups.  How did they get illusioned in the first place?  



            We had been told that Al-Quaeda had been decimated, but then that only means reduced by a tenth, so they are still around and so the law or bill passed by congress during the Bush administration allows him to bomb away.



            While he was speaking, John Kerry and Samatha Power were sitting next to each other behind him.  It is by no means clear that she whispered "What did Monica Lewinsky have that I don't?" into his ear, but she did whisper something.



            We also know that the Yazidi people are still oppressed and the women being sold into sexual slavery.  That has to stop.  Why aren't we doing anything about it?



            And this has been so effective that a Frenchman was killed in Algeria and a woman was beheaded in Oklahoma.  This 33 year old means business.



            Meanwhile, the President of Iraq warned the reporters that a subway would be bombed in Paris or New York, but nobody else knew about it.  Not even ISIS.    
-->

WAR, WAR, AND BULLSHIT

$
0
0

THE ABSURD TIMES



One of our allies, helps in the bombing.


Every time I start to type this up, something happens and I decide "What the fuck do I care anyway?"  So, I put it away and come back to it another day.  I mean, I mean, this has been going on so long that there is no point in continuing, but for some reason I keep on, just to say I told you so.  There area couple of great interviews at the end of this that provide some great examples.

OK, let's start with the first thing in the news, 24/7.  How many people have been infected in the United States during the last 3 years?  Any idea?  The answer is NONE, NOT ONE FUCKING PERSON!!  Got that?  NONE!  So, what the hell do I care?

Next, how many people has ISIS killed in the United States in the last year?  Answer: NONE!  (Or "classified," but it's NONE, NOT ONE!).  So knock it off!

I really have more respect for these morons who knock on the door and ask I I'd like to be "Born Again!", just like them!  The answer is NEVER!!  And go through Puberty again!  Shit, no way!  Get the hell outta here.  Of course, by that time they run down the streets, strewing their bibles all over the pavement.  Go to hell, all of you!

AGAIN: HOW MANY PEOPLE CAUGHT EBOLA IN THE UNITED STATES THIS YEAR?  NOT ONE!

Damn, someone just offered to climb on my roof for free, showed me a license and had a contract.  I told him NO!

May all such be cursed with an eternal, ineffectual, priapism. 

Ha, I fart at thee.

The world will be inhabitable for humans by the end of this century.  Of course, most of the people making money right now by hastening its end, will be dead long before that, so what do they care?  Even if they tried now, it is too late.  Global warming will kill mankind.  RIP.  If they had started in the 80s, there may have been a chance.  Now it is too late.

I really don't care as I will be dead before these assholes are.

Well, here are the interviews.  You already know that the reason for all the wars is profit and has been, even before Nobel (who would be horrified by what is going on now).  Lots of great military contracts.
Of course we don't need more oil.  We produce enough here and even contemplated sending gas to Europe to make up for Putin's threats, so not even that is a reason, just the profit that comes from it.




FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2014

Jeremy Scahill on Obama’s Orwellian War in Iraq: We Created the Very Threat We Claim to be Fighting

As Vice President Joe Biden warns it will take a "hell of a long fight" for the United States to stop militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, we speak to Jeremy Scahill, author of the book, "Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield." We talk about how the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 that helped create the threat now posed by the Islamic State. We also discuss the role of Baathist forces in ISIS, Obama’s targeting of journalists, and the trial of four former Blackwater operatives involved in the 2007 massacre at Baghdad’s Nisoor Square.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday it will take a, quote, "hell of a long fight" for the United States and its allies to stop the advance of militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. But during the same speech, Biden admitted the Islamic State poses no existential threat to the nation’s security. His comment comes as Australia becomes the latest country to join the U.S.-led fight. Prime Minister Tony Abbott said Australian planes will take part in the air campaign and that special forces would be deployed.
PRIME MINISTER TONY ABBOTT: The Americans certainly have quite a substantial special forces component on the ground already. My understanding is that there are U.K. and Canadian special forces already inside Iraq. So, we’ll be operating on a much smaller scale, but in an entirely comparable way to the United States special forces.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, Turkey’s Parliament has authorized the government to order military action against the Islamic State. The mandate also allows foreign troops to launch operations from Turkey. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, ISIS militants have seized more than 350 North Syrian villages in the past 16 days, displacing at least 300,000 people.
To talk more about the crisis in the Middle East, we’re joined by Jeremy Scahill, who first reported from inside Iraq before the 2003 U.S. invasion. He’s co-founder of theTheIntercept.org and author of the book Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. The paperback version of the book has just been published.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Jeremy.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Thanks, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: And congratulations on the book being published as a paperback. Talk about the war in Syria and Iraq now.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, you know, first of all, it’s sort of like the terrorist flavor of the month that we’re dealing with here. You know, first we had al-Qaeda as this huge global threat. Then it was ISIS. And then the Khorasan group was produced. And the thing is, almost no one in Syria had ever heard of the Khorasan group. In fact, my understanding is that it was a term that was sort of used in the U.S. intelligence community and actually isn’t the name of the people that they claim to be attacking.
And what the entire policy boils down to is that the Obama administration has, in a very Orwellian way, changed the definition of commonly understood terms—primarily, the term "imminent." They were saying that the Khorasan group represented an imminent threat to the United States. But we know from a leaked white paper, that was put out in advance of John Brennan’s confirmation to be theCIA director, that the Justice Department actually has officially changed the definition of the word "imminent" so that it does not need to involve an immediate threat against the United States, that it could be a perception that maybe one day these individuals could possibly attempt to plot—not even carry out—a terrorist attack against the United States. That flimsy justification has been used now to expand this war from Iraq to Syria, potentially beyond.
You know, the Obama administration, in engaging in this policy, is continuing a Bush administration outcome of the decision to invade Iraq. And that is, they’re empowering the very threat that they claim to be fighting. Who is ISIS? What is this group made up of? Is it just people that are radical Islamists that want to behead American journalists? No. One of the top—and this almost is never mentioned in corporate media coverage of this—one of the top military commanders of ISIS is a man named Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri al-Takriti. Who is Izzat Ibrahim? Izzat Ibrahim is the leading Baathist, who was on the deck of cards, that the United States has not captured. He was one of Saddam Hussein’s top military commanders. He was not just some ragamuffin Baathist. He actually was a hardcore general in the Iraqi military during the Iran-Iraq War, and he was a secular Baathist.
Why is he fighting with ISIS? Well, when Bush decided to invade Iraq, and then he put Paul Bremer, who was a radical neocon ideologue who had cut his teeth working for Henry Kissinger—when Paul Bremer was put in charge of the occupation of Iraq, one of the first things he did was to fire 250,000 Iraqi soldiers simply because they were members of the Baath Party. As one senior U.S. official at the time said, it was the day we made a quarter of a million enemies in Iraq. All of these Baathists have been jerked around by the United States, and the Sunnis in western Iraq, jerked around by the United States for a very long time. There was the period of the so-called surge, where the U.S. actually paid Sunnis not to kill the United States, you know, U.S. soldiers. And so, but then the U.S. turned around and put in power a Shiite-led government under Nouri al-Maliki that effectively operated a network of death squads that systematically attacked Sunnis.
So the point I’m making here is, yes, there’s an element of ISIS—I don’t know how dominant it is within the group—that is, you know, trying to establish the caliphate. And they are beheading people. And they are imposing a very strict interpretation of sharia law. But there are also—and I would suspect that they’re best military figures—there is also a large contingent of people that are fighting the same battle that they were fighting when the United States originally invaded. The fact is, there was no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before George W. Bush took—made the decision to invade it, except in the Kurdish region in the north of Iraq, which was not under Saddam Hussein’s control. In fact, it was under the control of U.S.-backed entities. And that was Ansar al-Islam. Saddam Hussein’s forces were fighting that group.
So, what am I saying here? What I’m saying is that the United States, through its policies, created the very threat that it claims to be fighting now, and in continuing this policy, what President Obama is doing is embracing the very lies that made the Cheney-Bush Iraq War possible. And in the process, he’s creating yet another generation of people in the Islamic world who are going to grow up in a society where they believe that their religion is being targeted, where they believe that the United States is a gratuitous enemy. And so, this is sort of an epic formula for blowback.
AMY GOODMAN: According to Yahoo News, the Obama administration has acknowledged a policy announced last year calling for "near certainty" for no civilian casualties in drone strikes will not apply to the current bombing. The admission came in response to queries about a strike that killed up to a dozen civilians in the Syrian village of Kafr Deryan last week.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. I mean, this is a kind of kabuki drone theater here, because the reality is that even in their drone strikes, that are supposedly done with precision and every precaution is taken not to kill civilians, the reality is that they’ve created a mathematical process for churning out the number of civilians killed in drone strikes that will always result in zero, because if they kill a so-called "jackpot," the target that they’re aiming for, and they kill other unknown individuals, the system that the Obama administration, the U.S. military and CIA have developed is that anyone who is an EKIA, enemy killed in action, is someone who we don’t have proof that they’re innocent. In other words, it’s sort of a reversal of the idea that you’re innocent until proven guilty. If you are near someone that the U.S. was intending to kill, the presumption is that you are an EKIA, you’re an enemy killed in action—unless someone can prove that you weren’t. And, I mean, most of these drone strikes, we don’t know anything about. So, in a way, the fact that they’re saying this has actually very little meaning, except that they’re going to have even less regard for civilian lives than they already do through their kabuki theater with their existing drone program.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about the former defense secretary, Leon Panetta, the book that’s coming out, Worthy Fights. He writes, "In the fall of 2011, it was clear to me—and many others—that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together. ... To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country."
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yeah, I mean, this is a clown show with these guys. I mean, the fact is that Leon Panetta was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and had enormous influence at that point. The fact that the Obama administration adopted what was effectively the U.S. policy in Iraq when Bush left office says a tremendous amount about how little the Obama administration understood the disaster in Iraq. Had the United States kept in this sort of strike force, which would have been CIAparamilitaries, special operations forces, it would have exacerbated the problem. The problem here isn’t whether or not the U.S. forces would have been there to stabilize Iraq. The issue is how much worse are we going to make Iraq with these policies. And I think it’s almost impossible to imagine that this could have been handled in a worse way. Having more troops there, I mean, that’s—all of these guys, when they write their memoirs, have this brilliant 20-20 vision looking backwards, that they were the one that knew, they would have done this differently. The U.S., basically, since 9/11—and you could make an argument that this has been U.S. policy for many, many decades—you know, U.S. policy has been its own worst enemy, in one sense: We’ve created the very threats we claim to be fighting.
But on the other hand, if you actually look at who benefits from this war, beyond entities like ISIS, because they do benefit from this—every time we kill civilians in drone strikes, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula becomes stronger, in the sense that they have a greater propaganda movement that they can roll out—the war industry. You know, Lockheed Martin is making a killing off of the killing, every Tomahawk cruise missile that’s launched. You know, the next generation of drone aircraft is going to be coming out. They’re working on jet-propelled drones that are going to be able to stay in the air for a very long time. The war industry is in its twilight right now, under Mr. Transformative Presidency Barack Obama. His administration has been an incredibly great friend to the war industry. And outside of some small groups of loony bins that are in Syria and Iraq, the war industry is the greatest beneficiary of this policy.
AMY GOODMAN: ISIS killing the journalists and the beheadings?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yeah, I mean, this is—first of all, you know, this has haunted me—I mean, obviously, as a journalist who’s worked in those areas, and I have a lot of friends now who are in those countries, you know, I was horrified at it. In watching the videos, though—and, you know, they were so—in both the case of James Foley and Steven Sotloff, they’re so calm in the statements that they are giving, and it’s impossible to imagine that they know that they’re going to be killed in those moments. And, you know, my suspicion—and I’ve done some reporting on this—is that they had been put in that position repeatedly and told, you know, "You have to say this statement." And in other words, they were subjected to mock executions over and over and over again. And if you notice in the videos, you don’t actually see their heads being cut off. I think it’s possible that that was like read number 31 for James Foley of this statement, and they took the best cut of that, and he may have been killed in other context, and then they placed it there.
They have them in the orange jumpsuits. We know that they had been waterboarded. Where does this come from? This is inspired by what we did to Muslim prisoners around the world, when we put them in gulags in Poland, in Thailand and elsewhere in these so-called black sites, when we took them to Guantánamo and—or we threatened that we were going to kill their families, or we put them in small boxes where they couldn’t lay down and couldn’t stand up. And we brought in psychiatrists to, in a very sick, macabre way, investigate and exploit the fears of the Muslim prisoners that we took under the auspices of fighting terrorism, and we would stick people in boxes, and if they had a fear of spiders, we would put a caterpillar in the box and tell them it was a tarantula, to try to terrify them. You know, JSOC, the Joint Special Operations Command, ran a torture factory in Iraq at a camp called Camp Nama, which is Nasty A-S-S Military Area, where they were just torturing, torturing, torturing people, trying to find the next target to hit. You know, this is—these militants are adopting the very tactics that the United States used—and continues to use—against Muslims that it captures.
And, you know, there has never been a more intense, intensely dangerous time for journalists. On the one hand, you have episodes like this, where journalists are being beheaded. In Mexico, journalists are being gunned down by narco-cartels or pro-government forces for telling the truth and reporting. Freelancers, and mostly Arab or Muslim journalists, are on the front lines being killed in record numbers, in Somalia, as well. And then here at home, in the United States, there’s a war against journalists and a war against whistleblowers. The U.S. government is intent on tracking who is giving information to journalists that is not officially cleared by the White House. And the message that they’re sending is: "We only want the official statements to be out, or our official leaks."
When the Khorasan group popped out of nowhere, and we were told, like, this is the greatest threat—in fact, on NBC News, there was a fantastic—Brian Williams, when he was announcing, you know, the new, latest, greatest threat—trademark—he had a graphic next to him that just said "the new enemy." And it’s like we could just take a picture of that, and every year or—apparently now it’s going to be every two or three months—we can just have Brian Williams there with "the new threat." It could become an annual holiday in this country where we just celebrate whatever new war is going to give Lockheed Martin and Boeing and all these companies tremendous profits.
You know, the age that we’re living in now, where there’s this war on journalists abroad by every possible force, and then this war at home, where journalists are being surveilled—their sources are being threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act—the Obama administration is in league with some of the most ruthless violators of human rights in the world in a campaign against the press.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama, the current president—possible presidential contenders, for example, are Hillary Clinton. You wrote Dirty Wars while she was secretary of state. What about her position on this?
JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, Hillary Clinton is—I actually think, is more hawkish than Barack Obama, and Barack Obama has emerged as a pretty significant hawk in terms of his policies. He can talk all he wants about, you know, how he wants to change and reset relationships around the world; this has been a total militarized presidency. Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, acted as though she was also sort of secretary of defense. And her State Department was deeply involved with plotting covert action around the world, using the State Department as cover for CIAoperations. And, you know, the Clintons, Bill and Hillary Clinton, are two of the most fierce projectors of the politics of the American empire, and they also have very close relationships with some of the most nefarious characters from the Bush family. So, you know, those two families together, the Bushes and the Clintons, it’s almost like a monarchy in this country. I mean, Jeb Bush very well may run. I mean, it’s unclear what—you know, George W. Bush said the other day that he’s putting pressure on his brother to try to run for president. But, you know, Hillary Clinton is a fierce neoliberal who believes in backing up the so-called "hidden hand of the free market" with merciless, iron-fisted military policies.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you very quickly about Blackwater and the trial that’s been going on. Jurors have been deliberating in the murder and manslaughter trial of the four former Blackwater operatives allegedly involved in the 2007 massacre at Baghdad’s Nisoor Square. The suspects are charged with the deaths of 14 of the 17 Iraqi civilians who died when their Blackwater unit indiscriminately opened fire.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. I mean, this was the worst massacre of Iraqi civilians at the hands of mercenaries, private contractors, that we know of in Iraq. And, you know, I don’t know how the verdict is going to turn out, but what I do know is that the person who should be on trial is Erik Prince, who was the founder and ran Blackwater when it was essentially Murder Incorporated in Iraq, where there was an environment at that company where they were encouraged to view every Iraqi as the enemy. And they committed many massacres beyond what we know at Nisoor Square. This is a microcosm of what happens all the time. It’s always the people down the chain that face the consequences. I believe that these men should be prosecuted, should be convicted, for what they did, and they should be in prison. But the leadership of Blackwater should also be there. And until we, as a society, stop cutting off who’s held accountable at the lowest ranks, nothing is ever going to fundamentally change.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Scahill, thanks so much for being with us. His new book,Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, well, the New York Times best-seller, is now out in paperback.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Iraq Veterans Against the War: Decade-Old Group Grapples with New War, PTSD Epidemic, VA Failures

Ten years ago, six members of the U.S. military came together to break their silence over what they had witnessed during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. They banded together and formed the organization Iraq Veterans Against the War, or IVAW. Over time, they gathered like-minded veterans across the United States to form a contemporary GI resistance movement. Celebrated its tenth anniversary, IVAWmembers say it is a bittersweet moment as the United States has resumed bombing in Iraq. Today, IVAW chapters are in 48 states and numerous bases overseas. The group has called for reparations for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan — for both human and infrastructural damages caused by the U.S.-led invasion. They have also called for adequate healthcare to be provided at VA facilities, including mental healthcare, for all returning veterans. We host a roundtable with three IVAW members: co-founder Kelly Dougherty, who was deployed to Kuwait and Iraq from 2003-2004; Brock McIntosh, who served in Afghanistan and applied for conscientious objector status; and Scott Olsen, a former marine who served two tours in Iraq and was critically wounded after being shot in the head by a police projectile at an Occupy Oakland protest.
Image Credit: Jonathan McIntosh

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Ten years ago, six members of the U.S. military came together to break their silence over what they had witnessed during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. They banded together and formed the organization Iraq Veterans Against the War. Over time, they gathered like-minded veterans across the United States to form a contemporary GI resistance movement. Each of the members has a personal story about why they joined the military, what they witnessed when deployed, and how they came to oppose the U.S.-led invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is Jose Vasquez, executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
JOSE VASQUEZ: I grew up in a pretty tough situation in California. As a high school student, I felt like I didn’t have a lot of options. The only person that was really actively reaching out to me was the Army recruiters. I had some experience with the military, because my dad was drafted for Vietnam, and my uncle served in the Gulf War. So, for me, it seemed like this is something that the men in the family did.
I was against the Iraq War from the beginning. I think in 2004 that was really a turning point for me, when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. One of my close friends, who I served in the Reserve with, was deploying to Abu Ghraib, and so it really made it personal for me. It kind of brought the war home. For a while I thought I was the only soldier that was opposed to the war, but I started doing research online, and I stumbled across Iraq Veterans Against the War. It was the only place where I heard the voices of soldiers and veterans who were speaking out against it.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Jose Vasquez, executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War, or IVAW. The group just celebrated its 10th anniversary. They say it’s a bittersweet moment, as a decade later the United States is back in Iraq. Today,IVAW members are in 48 states and numerous bases overseas. The group has called for reparations for the people of Iraq, for both human and infrastructural damages caused by the U.S.-led invasion. They’ve also called for adequate healthcare, including mental healthcare, for all returning servicemen and women.
Well, for more, we’re joined by three of the members of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Kelly Dougherty is the group’s co-founder. She deployed to Kuwait and Iraq from 2003 to ’04. Brock McIntosh is an IVAW member who served in Afghanistan from November 2008 to August 2009. He applied for conscientious objector status and was discharged in May 2014. And Scott Olsen joins us, former marine who served two tours in the Iraq War and was critically wounded—not in Iraq, but after being shot in the head by a police projectile at Occupy Oakland, where he was protesting. He was hospitalized in critical condition with a fractured skull, a broken neck vertebrae and brain swelling. He, too, is a member of IVAW.
We welcome you all to Democracy Now! I should say "all back to Democracy Now!" since at one point or other we have had each of you on. Kelly, you’re gathered here in New York for this 10th anniversary?
KELLY DOUGHERTY: Yes, last night we had a 10th anniversary gala fundraiser, and it was a time for us to reflect on the work of the past 10 years. And as you said, it’s bittersweet, because we’ve been building this community to counter war, to counter militarism, and yet now here we are again bombing Iraq. So, you know, we’re celebrating our victories and also recognizing the losses, both with war and militarism and then losses within our community, of our friend Jacob George, recently passed away.
AMY GOODMAN: And I want to talk about Jacob in a moment, but, Brock McIntosh, what are your thoughts on the current bombing of Iraq and Syria?
BROCK McINTOSH: Well, you know, I think the media has often portrayed ISIS as being some organization that just suddenly emerged over the last year or so, but this is the same exact organization that many of my allies in IVAW were fighting when they were in Iraq. And, you know, nearly 10 years of going to war with ISIS, with several hundred thousand American soldiers on the ground, wasn’t able to eliminateISIS. So, it’s strange to think that some limited airstrikes over the next few years will be able to destroy ISIS. And reports from the FBI have shown that recruitment forISIS has actually grown since we’ve started bombing them.
AMY GOODMAN: Scott Olsen, how did you come to fight in Iraq?
SCOTT OLSEN: Well, I joined the Marine Corps right after I joined—graduated high school. You know, our country was at war. I felt like it was the right thing to do, to step up and to defend our freedoms and democracy, right?
AMY GOODMAN: Where did you grow up?
SCOTT OLSEN: In Wisconsin. And right after I joined, I went to Iraq within about a year, after I joined the Marine Corps. And that was in 2006. And I was in al-Anbar province, where it’s a majority Sunni population, which is where the Islamic State is making huge recruitment gains, and it’s the population that they are recruiting.
AMY GOODMAN: And your thoughts right now on this renewed war in Iraq?
SCOTT OLSEN: I mean, yeah, it’s a renewed war, but it’s really the same war. Just because we left, just because our military left, does not mean the war was over. You know, it’s the same conflicts and the same tensions that we played a big part in stoking. And, you know, these are the consequences of war. You know, 10 years later, it’s the same thing.
AMY GOODMAN: The most senior U.S. military officer has said U.S. ground troops may be needed in Iraq as part of the Obama administration’s offensive against the Islamic State. General Martin Dempsey, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month.
GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY: As I said in my statement, however, this—my view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true. But if it fails to be true and if there are threats to the United States, then I of course would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.
AMY GOODMAN: Kelly Dougherty, your response to that?
KELLY DOUGHERTY: Well, I find it just a little ironic that it seemed, over the course of the Bush administration, the country really turned against the occupation of Iraq and wanted the troops to come home, and then last year, when we saw a proposal to bomb Syria, there was great opposition, but now, with all the fear mongering that’s been going on, it seems like just kind of overnight now a majority of people support bombing Iraq, bombing Syria, and even the idea of sending more troops back into Iraq, which just seems like a recipe for just continued long-term destruction and catastrophe, both for the U.S. soldiers involved and then for the people of Iraq who have been living generationally in war and conflict. I mean, so many of these fighters in ISIS now are people who were kids when I was in Iraq, you know, living in a constant state of disorder, violence and conflict and occupation.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to this discussion. Our guests are Kelly Dougherty, co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War, or IVAW, deployed to Kuwait and Iraq in 2003 and '04; Brock McIntosh, served in Afghanistan; Scott Olsen, twice in Iraq. They're all members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, celebrating their 10th anniversary, as the U.S. goes back to war in Iraq. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Jacob George singing "Soldier’s Heart." This isDemocracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. Jacob George is an Afghanistan war veteran and peace activist who took his own life earlier this month. He co-founded the Afghan Veterans Against the War Committee, part of Iraq Veterans Against the War. In 2012 at the NATO summit in Chicago, he was among the veterans who hurled their military medals toward the summit gates in an act of protest against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
JACOB GEORGE: My name is Jacob George. I’m from the Ouachita Mountains in Arkansas. I’m a three-tour veteran of the Afghan War, paratrooper and sergeant. And I have one word for this Global War on Terrorism decoration, and that is "shame."
AMY GOODMAN: Jacob George killed himself September 17th, one week after President Obama unveiled a new U.S. military mission against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He was 32 years old. Our guests are all members of Iraq Veterans Against the War—Scott Olsen, Kelly Dougherty and Brock McIntosh. You knew him well. You knew Jacob George very well.
BROCK McINTOSH: Yeah, we were good friends. We met a few months after I got back from Afghanistan. We co-founded the Afghanistan Veterans Against the War Committee with other veterans. And then, a year after that, we went to Afghanistan again, but as civilians.
AMY GOODMAN: To do what?
BROCK McINTOSH: Well, we met with a group called the Afghan Peace Volunteers, which has been doing wonderful organizing against the occupation of Afghanistan and organizing for an end to war in general in their country. And we also went to several schools, orphanages and an internally displaced persons camp. And Jacob has sung about those experiences in his recent album.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what happened to Jacob?
BROCK McINTOSH: Sure. Jacob deployed to Afghanistan three times. His first deployment was in 2001, which was about 13 years ago. And—
AMY GOODMAN: Why did he go? Where did he come from?
BROCK McINTOSH: Where did he come from?
AMY GOODMAN: Where did he grow up? Do you know?
BROCK McINTOSH: Oh, yeah, he grew up in Arkansas in the Ouachita Mountains. He was a very, very proud hillbilly. And returning to Afghanistan was a powerful experience for him, because he got to meet Afghans who were also from the mountains of Afghanistan. They called themselves "mountain boys," and he called himself a hillbilly. And, you know, he and the Afghans he met talk about the unfortunate reality of sending farmers to kill farmers while people are starving. And there are several people starving in Afghanistan because of war for 30 years and drought.
AMY GOODMAN: And then, can you talk about Jacob’s struggles when he came back to this country?
BROCK McINTOSH: Sure. You know, he saw a lot of killing in Afghanistan, and he also talked about seeing fear in the eyes of Afghans. And the idea that he could put fear in someone kind of haunted him. And he had lots of nightmares when he returned, and felt kind of isolated and didn’t really tell his story. But over the last few years, he’s had the opportunity to tell his story and to build long-lasting relationships, not only with other veterans who are like-minded, but also with Afghans.
AMY GOODMAN: Jacob had this philosophy of what he called "warriorhood."
BROCK McINTOSH: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what that is?
BROCK McINTOSH: Sure. So, a soldier is a career professional, and they go to work, and then they come home, and they are able to compartmentalize the job of going to war and coming home. And a warrior is someone who is—being a warrior is a way of life, and they are driven by empathy. They see injustice, and they want to do something about it, and they fight. But they also—the empathy isn’t limited to—isn’t limited. They have empathy for the people that they’re fighting, as well. And that’s part of what makes them good in battle, but that’s also part of why they bring so much pain home, because they feel that pain, and they begin to understand the enemy in a different way.
AMY GOODMAN: Was he able to seek help from the VA, from the Veterans Administration, for post-traumatic stress disorder?
BROCK McINTOSH: I know that he had been seeing a counselor at the VA for some time, but he was having a lot of difficulty, because this counselor would push back and sort of question him about whether or not he was right about his interpretations of war. He didn’t believe that he had PTSD; he believed that he had moral injury, that it wasn’t a disorder to feel the way that he felt about war and that he was justified in being able to recognize that it wasn’t moral and to be able to tell people about that story.
AMY GOODMAN: When we went out to Chicago to cover the NATO protest in 2012, that’s when we covered so many of you who were throwing your medals back at the gate at the NATO summit. Jacob did that. We just played a clip of what he said as he hurled his medals. How important was that protest to him?
BROCK McINTOSH: I mean, he talked about how throwing that medal was like throwing his pain away. It was a symbolic moment. He believed a lot in rituals. And for him, that was sort of a ritual and a way of shedding, shedding that aspect of his identity.
AMY GOODMAN: Scott, I remember seeing you there with a helmet on. You wore a helmet for a long time after Occupy Oakland, after your head was hit by a police projectile. Can you talk about the VA and your experiences with it?
SCOTT OLSEN: Sure. I first tried applying for health coverage from the VA, you know, within months after I got out. And—
AMY GOODMAN: After two tours in Iraq.
SCOTT OLSEN: After two tours in Iraq. And I’ve now been out for almost five years, and I’ve yet to see a doctor from the VA.
AMY GOODMAN: How can that be?
SCOTT OLSEN: That’s because I have what they call an "other-than-honorable discharge," and that makes me ineligible to receive care from the VA. And there are thousands of veterans with an other-than-honorable discharge. And—
AMY GOODMAN: And how did that come about, the other-than-honorable discharge?
SCOTT OLSEN: I was accused of using drugs in the military. And I didn’t. And the process to award an other-than-honorable discharge is that there’s no, like, rights, in terms of the defendant.
AMY GOODMAN: So you couldn’t appeal what they decided.
SCOTT OLSEN: Right, it was just three officers appointed by the battalion commander who made this decision. And there was no oversight and no way around it, really.
AMY GOODMAN: And once that decision is handed down, you cannot go through the VA system?
SCOTT OLSEN: Well, after you get out—and I’m working on a process to get that, to get my discharge upgraded and for them to recognize the character of my service.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain what happened to you, not in Iraq, but at Occupy Oakland, and then the kind of healthcare you got after that, if you couldn’t go to the VA?
SCOTT OLSEN: Well, I ended up going to a private hospital.
AMY GOODMAN: The date that you were hit?
SCOTT OLSEN: October 25th, 2011, is when I was shot by the police.
AMY GOODMAN: And you were there protesting because?
SCOTT OLSEN: Mostly because I thought it was wrong that the police evicted Occupy Oakland from this public space in front of City Hall in Oakland. And I thought it was important to support Occupy Oakland as veterans and to say veterans support these rights that we thought we were fighting for.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, explain what happened that night—not that you can really remember very much of what happened.
SCOTT OLSEN: Well, the incident commander from the police gave the order to disperse the crowd.
AMY GOODMAN: Were you wearing your fatigues?
SCOTT OLSEN: I was wearing my cammy jacket, and I was standing next to another veteran in full uniform. And the officer gave the order to deploy gas. And about 16 seconds after he gave that order, I was shot in the head by a beanbag round. It was their policy to protect tear gas canisters using beanbag rounds, so anybody who they thought was going to pick up and throw back a tear gas canister, they would shoot beanbags at them.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, what happened to you laying on the ground? As you speak, we’re also showing video of you at the time.
SCOTT OLSEN: Another officer threw a flash-bang grenade at myself and the people who were trying to rescue me and evacuate me. And this officer was terminated last year, and he was recently rehired with back pay.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, you’re being carried by people. They don’t even know who you are. I remember seeing the video and them shouting, "What’s your name? What’s your name?"
SCOTT OLSEN: Right, and I could not answer. And I didn’t know I couldn’t answer. I did not realize the extent of my injuries in those seconds. And when I couldn’t answer them, that helped me accept that I was not doing well and I needed their help.
AMY GOODMAN: So you ended up not at the VA?
SCOTT OLSEN: Right. I went to Highland Hospital, the public hospital in Oakland, and received care there. And I still have gotten zero care from the VA.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Scott Olsen, who sued the city. Explain what happened with your lawsuit. There was just a recent settlement.
SCOTT OLSEN: Right. We settled in this past April for a total of four-and-a-half million dollars.
AMY GOODMAN: And this was voted on by the Oakland City Council?
SCOTT OLSEN: Right, they approved it. And it was through their City Attorney’s Office that we arrived at that. And it’s very good to have that lawsuit over. It was a very stressful period. But, you know, it’s still not over. That officer is still working for the Oakland police, and Oakland police still has poor disciplinary measures and processes.
AMY GOODMAN: And how are you feeling?
SCOTT OLSEN: I’m not feeling good about Oakland police or about going back into war, but I’m feeling ready to resist that and to keep fighting for—to right these injustices.
AMY GOODMAN: This issue of post-traumatic stress disorder and the return to Iraq and Syria, there’s not a lot of discussion in the corporate media about the soldiers, because, well, there’s been this whole discussion of whether there will be boots on the ground. But the top generals are very much talking about that, not to mention those who fly what they call "sorties," you know, who bomb Iraq and Syria. Can you talk about that, soldiers who are not on the ground but who are doing this, Brock?
BROCK McINTOSH: Yeah, drone pilots and people who operate drones—drones usually involve a team that involves about four or five different people. And they are not immune to—they’re not immune to being mentally troubled by their experiences in war. And, you know, just to go back to what Scott was talking about, there are studies that show that soldiers who come home with PTSD are often more likely to commit crimes, and that means they’re more likely to be dishonorably discharged. And in some ways, these are the people who need help the most from the VA.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you know what Jacob George’s reaction was to the U.S. military going back into Iraq and now bombing Syria?
BROCK McINTOSH: Well, I last talked to him in June, and at that time ISIS was starting to take over Iraqi towns, and he was very troubled by the prospect of going to war. He was also equally troubled when Bowe Bergdahl, the POW from Afghanistan, came home and not only didn’t receive a welcome, but he received the opposite of a welcome—he received nothing but hatred.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to end by asking about the use of depleted uranium in Iraq. Last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Defense and the State Department on behalf of itself and Iraq Veterans Against the War. It seeks the firing coordinates of weapons used in Iraq that contained depleted uranium. If a person inhales, ingests or is exposed to the radiation of depleted uranium, radioactive material can be absorbed into the lungs, bone, kidney, skeletal tissue, reproductive system, brain and other organs. Kelly Dougherty, you’re one of the heads of IVAW.
KELLY DOUGHERTY: Yeah. So we’ve been working with the Center for Constitutional Rights and also with partners in Iraq, such as the Organization for Women’s Freedom in Iraq, around issues of depleted uranium use. They’re seeing in Iraq huge skyrocketing numbers of birth defects and health problems in areas where depleted uranium rounds were used. And then there’s also the issue of returning veterans’ health impacts and similar things. So, we want to see where those weapons were used, so we can start to build a case to support reparations for the Iraqis, as well as guaranteeing that our U.S. servicemembers who are coming back with depleted uranium exposure get the proper recognition and treatment.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, has Iraq Veterans Against the War come out with a statement on the U.S. bombing of Iraq and Syria right now?
KELLY DOUGHERTY: We are working on a statement right now, and that should be out. And, you know, we have seen the human casualties of war. And these are inevitable consequences, is that more and more people are going to be—have their lives destroyed, and more people are going to be radicalized to join radical organizations like ISIS, with our continued militarism in the region.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you all for being with us. Kelly Dougherty, co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War; Brock McIntosh, served in Afghanistan; and Scott Olsen, two tours of duty in Iraq, but was injured here at home, when he was protesting at Occupy Oakland, by the police—all members of Iraq Veterans Against the War. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, Jeremy scale on Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "Yellow Ribbon," by Emily Yates, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. She says she wrote the song after speaking with fellow veterans about the yellow ribbon magnets people put on their cars. Yates was deployed twice to Iraq, where she served in the 3rd Infantry Division as an Army public affairs specialist from 2002 to 2008. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


-->
Viewing all 852 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images